# We're in the last moments of world history...



## baydoll

..as we know it.

From one of my favorite Pastors:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xoMcSTlvFzA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I have to be away for a while (I know, I know! This will disappoint libby and Radiant and a few others on here I'm sure, lol!) so I won't be able to respond to this thread. But I do hope you will take the time to watch this video (he is an excellent Bible teacher) and take everything Pastor J. D. says in this video to heart. Please prayerfully consider what he says. In the meantime, I will be praying for everyone here. God bless you all and I will hopefully see you all real soon.


----------



## Starman3000m

Great and timely message - should have all taking a serious look at the developing situations in this world and how these relate to Christ's prophetic words from the Holy Bible.

Have a good time away baydoll.


----------



## vraiblonde

Isn't every minute the last minute of world history as we know it?  And haven't natural disasters and world unrest been a part of life since the beginning of time?


----------



## Zguy28

vraiblonde said:


> Isn't every minute the last minute of world history as we know it?  And haven't natural disasters and world unrest been a part of life since the beginning of time?


Yes.

I don't get spun up over natural disasters or false teachers etc since Jesus said that all these things were already happening in the First Century and so the master of the house can come anytime. I know some on here disagree with me, but hey, when it comes to eschatology, to each their own. My eschatology does not require a new Jewish temple to be rebuilt or a pre-tribulation rapture and all of that stuff. 

Here is a decent overview of what I believe: Week 2 Classic Premillennialism « Models of Eschatology


----------



## Radiant1

vraiblonde said:


> Isn't every minute the last minute of world history as we know it?  And haven't natural disasters and world unrest been a part of life since the beginning of time?



Yep.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Yep.



"As in the days of Noah..."



> But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24:37-39)



The thing is, people should be ready at any moment to be right with God, regardless of what the world situations are.


----------



## Zguy28

Starman3000m said:


> "As in the days of Noah..."
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, people should be ready at any moment to be right with God, regardless of what the world situations are.


Exactly.

As the good Reverend Cleophus James would say: 

And now, people... And now, people... When I woke up this mornin', I heard a distubin' sound. I said When I woke up this mornin', I heard a disturbin' sound! What I heard was the jingle-jangle of a thousand lost souls! I'm talkin' 'bout the souls of mortal men and women, departed from this life. Wait a minute! Those lost angry souls roamin' unseen on the earth, seekin' to find life they'll not find, because it's too late! Tooooo late, yeah! Too late for they'll never see again the life they choose not to follow. Alright! Alright! Don't be lost when your time comes! For the day of the Lord cometh as a thief in the night!
_[breaks into singing the Old Landmark] _


----------



## nhboy

Send Pastor J.D. a boar's tusk.


----------



## foodcritic

Zguy28 said:


> Yes.
> 
> I don't get spun up over natural disasters or false teachers etc since Jesus said that all these things were already happening in the First Century and so the master of the house can come anytime. I know some on here disagree with me, but hey, when it comes to eschatology, to each their own. My eschatology does not require a new Jewish temple to be rebuilt or a pre-tribulation rapture and all of that stuff.
> 
> Here is a decent overview of what I believe: Week 2 Classic Premillennialism « Models of Eschatology



I think most of us are premillenial.
But to each is own is a stretch.  The bible should be the key to what will take place.  A to each his own motto would not apply to many important doctrines. 

PreWrath Ministries


----------



## foodcritic

Starman3000m said:


> "As in the days of Noah..."
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, people should be ready at any moment to be right with God, regardless of what the world situations are.



The example here was for non believers that were partying....not believers.


----------



## hvp05

Starman3000m said:


> The thing is, people should be ready at any moment to be right with God, regardless of what the world situations are.


As the famous - though somewhat false - Native American saying "Today is a good day to die" implies, even if you know _humanity_ will survive for another millenniium, you cannot be sure of your _own_ time.

Party on!


----------



## foodcritic

1 Thes 5:


> 1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.(to the un-believer) 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman(did you not know you were pregnant for 9 months), and they will not escape.
> 
> 4 *But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.* 5


----------



## Starman3000m

foodcritic said:


> The example here was for non believers that were partying....not believers.



Exactly Right!  However, I'd say we do have a few non-believers reading these threads in the religious forum and scoffing at the Biblical discussions.

The example is (for non-believers) to Heed the Warning that one needs to turn to Christ as Lord and Saviour.


----------



## foodcritic

Starman3000m said:


> Exactly Right!  However, I'd say we do have a few non-believers reading these threads in the religious forum and scoffing at the Biblical discussions.
> 
> The example is to Heed the Warning that one needs to turn to Christ as Lord and Saviour.



my point was the issue of immanency of His return.  Noah spent 100 years building.  The building of the ark was a sign to the unbelievers of God's coming judgment.  Then the rain for 40 days.  Another sign of coming judgment.  Then the rest is history so to speak.....


----------



## Starman3000m

foodcritic said:


> my point was the issue of immanency of His return.  Noah spent 100 years building.  The building of the ark was a sign to the unbelievers of God's coming judgment.  Then the rain for 40 days.  Another sign of coming judgment.  Then the rest is history so to speak.....



Agreed.  However, throughout those 100 years people were ridiculing Noah just as many today ridicule the surge of Bible Prophecy comments by believers whenever major disasters occur.  Scoffers proclaim, "Ah..so what? Disasters have been happening throughout the years and Jesus still hasn't returned." 

Sure, it's been 2000+ years since Jesus' warnings but when Judgment comes upon this world the unbelievers will not be able to say that they had not been warned - Just as in the days of Noah.


----------



## Gilligan

hvp05 said:


> As the famous - though somewhat false - Native American saying "Today is a good day to die" implies, even if you know _humanity_ will survive for another millenniium, you cannot be sure of your _own_ time.
> 
> Party on!



Yeah..that.

I pick my religous affiliation based on whoever is today's pick for having Armageddon the farthest out in time. I'm a Buddhist at the moment....had to give up the Mayan thing; it was getting too close.


----------



## Wenchy

I had a dream last night.  Perhaps I am a prophet.


----------



## Zguy28

foodcritic said:


> I think most of us are premillenial.
> But to each is own is a stretch.  The bible should be the key to what will take place.  A to each his own motto would not apply to many important doctrines.
> 
> PreWrath Ministries


I think you know in what context I was speaking.



> 1 Thes 5:
> Quote:
> 1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.(to the un-believer) 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman(did you not know you were pregnant for 9 months), and they will not escape.
> 
> 4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5


the Lord Jesus WILL come like a thief in the night to all people. There is no differentiation in that text.

Paul contextually says "be ready _when_ He comes suddenly."


----------



## kom526

hvp05 said:


> As the famous - though somewhat false - Native American saying "Today is a good day to die" implies, even if you know _humanity_ will survive for another millenniium, you cannot be sure of your _own_ time.
> 
> Party on!



I thought Klingons said that? I know Worf did in one of the Star Trek movies. (with the TNG gang).


----------



## hvp05

Starman3000m said:


> I'd say we do have a few non-believers reading these threads in the religious forum and scoffing at the Biblical discussions.







> The example is (for non-believers) to Heed the Warning that one needs to turn to Christ as Lord and Saviour.


Hasn't worked yet.  You can keep trying.  If god wants me to be saved, he will find a way for you to make it happen.





kom526 said:


> I thought Klingons said that?


  I'm sure it has been used and adapted for quite a few applications.


----------



## bcp

vraiblonde said:


> Isn't every minute the last minute of world history as we know it?  And haven't natural disasters and world unrest been a part of life since the beginning of time?



The Bible warned us that there would be people saying this.


----------



## Starman3000m

hvp05 said:


> Hasn't worked yet.  You can keep trying.  If god wants me to be saved, he will find a way for you to make it happen.



That's the point! God *does* want you to be saved!  

The question is - Do you want to be saved? Would you be willing to give up things that keep you from establishing a relationship with God? If so, ask Him for Forgiveness in denying Him and ask to receive His Promise of Salvation  - not for what you could ever do to earn it but what Christ did through His Atoning Blood.



> The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. ( 2 Peter 3:9)




BTW: Neither I nor anyone else here can "save" you.  This needs to be a one-on-one between you and God - but Salvation is available If you really want to receive it.  Admitting that you cannot be perfect enough to merit entry into heaven and inviting Jesus into your life to be your personal Lord and Saviour is the way to Salvation.



> Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Revelation 3:20)
> 
> Jesus saith unto him, *I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.* (John 14:6)


----------



## PsyOps

bcp said:


> The Bible warned us that there would be people saying this.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

The sad Truth is most of humanity is going to hell. Even sadder is that is not God's design.


> John 3:16 (New American Standard Bible)
> 
> 16"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.



Most people have and continue to reject God's free gift. My advice, to use an old American folk phrase, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."


----------



## bcp

2ndAmendment said:


> The sad Truth is most of humanity is going to hell. Even sadder is that is not God's design.
> 
> 
> Most people have and continue to reject God's free gift. My advice, to use an old American folk phrase, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth."



 To the best if my knowledge, Im ready, I could be more ready, but, I figure that somewhere at least toward the back of the train, I have a seat.


----------



## vraiblonde

2ndAmendment said:


> The sad Truth is most of humanity is going to hell. Even sadder is that is not God's design.



Apparently it IS God's design, otherwise he'd make it different.


----------



## vraiblonde

bcp said:


> The Bible warned us that there would be people saying this.



And it was right because people have been saying it regularly for over 2000 years.


----------



## Starman3000m

vraiblonde said:


> Apparently it IS God's design, otherwise he'd make it different.



God loves mankind and wants no one to perish but His "design" was to give people the choice of whether they want to love Him or love the world. 

There is no fence-sitting on the Day of God's Judgment,  One either accepted His Offer of Forgiveness and Salvation through Jesus' Atonement or rejected God's Offer altogether.


----------



## vraiblonde

Starman3000m said:


> God loves mankind and wants no one to perish but His "design" was to give people the choice of whether they want to love Him or love the world.



And therefore he wants some people to go to hell, otherwise he wouldn't have given them a choice.


----------



## hvp05

Starman3000m said:


> Do you want to be saved?


These questions make me think of the Chick Tracts.  Some wise-looking gentleman approaches a doofy-looking younger person and asks, "Do you _want_ to spend eternity burning in hell, Rob?"  The younger one gets wide-eyed, stares back and says, "Gee, I sure don't!  What can I do?"  "Sit down and recite this:  'Lord, I know I am a pitiful sinner...'."

Who _doesn't_ want happiness for eternity?  Unfortunately for me, I guess, I have too many logical problems with the whole deal there.  For one, I am hardly a boastful person, but I do not see the value in leveling my self-confidence towards establishing confidence in god/faith.  Second, I don't understand how the "sacrifice" was genuine since Jesus did what he was sent to do.  :shrug:  (Not that I'm trying to get the thread off track, or make it like so many other threads...)




> Neither I nor anyone else here can "save" you.  This needs to be a one-on-one between you and God...


Then what?  I can come back on the Forums beaming with the light of my newly cleansed soul only to have my beliefs judged, scolded and altered by those who claim to know Jesus just a bit better than I do.  You guys do seem to have a blast in here, but no thanks.


----------



## Starman3000m

vraiblonde said:


> And therefore he wants some people to go to hell, otherwise he wouldn't have given them a choice.



God doesn't want them to go to hell. Satan, God's adversary, wants to take people with him to hell.

So it's back to the question of whom to believe and follow? God's Offer to be saved from the Judgment that will come against all evil or Satan's subtle deceptions in all forms that turn people against believing in God's Plan of Salvation through the Atoning Blood of Christ?

Individual's choice.


----------



## hvp05

vraiblonde said:


> And therefore he wants some people to go to hell, otherwise he wouldn't have given them a choice.


The path is said to be "narrow", indicating to me that _most_ will not gain admittance.  Sux to be us.


Unless those of us who have remained unassuming and logical are the ones who actually get in.


----------



## vraiblonde

Starman3000m said:


> God doesn't want them to go to hell. Satan, God's adversary, wants to take people with him to hell.



But if God is all powerful, then he could simply make Satan disappear.  If He created everything, surely he could get rid of it, right?  So obviously God *wants* Satan around to make people bad, so that they will go to hell.


----------



## Starman3000m

vraiblonde said:


> But if God is all powerful, then he could simply make Satan disappear.  If He created everything, surely he could get rid of it, right?  So obviously God *wants* Satan around to make people bad, so that they will go to hell.



The time will come when God will put a final end to Satan and all evil for eternity.  People will have chosen whether they trusted their soul to God or neglected the offer He gave to save them from the wrath to come.

In this world, Satan's temptations cause people to have the tendency to disobey and disbelieve God. However, it is God's strength through Christ alone that gives people the ability to turn away from Satan's control and influence to do wrong. People have the choice to recognize their shortcomings (no one is perfect) and admit to God that they are in need of the Salvation He offers through Christ.

In such case, one needs to renounce Satan's controlling influence and  invite Christ into their life to be their sole source of strength, guidance and Salvation.  We don't have power on our own to overcome this world - Christ is our only strength and His Promise is that He will not turn anyone away.



> Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: *for without me ye can do nothing*. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:4-6)





> For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:4-6)



God wants people to seek Him with their sincere desire and knows the heart of each person. Then you will be led to His Plan of Salvation and not be refused:



> All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and *him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out*. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:37-40)


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> ...I can come back on the Forums beaming with the light of my newly cleansed soul only to have my beliefs judged, scolded and altered by those who claim to know Jesus just a bit better than I do.  You guys do seem to have a blast in here, but no thanks.


Actually this happens in almost all of the forums, so you can't pin it only on the religion forum. The "stakes" are greater on there however. For the devil to convince you to believe that hedonism is king, is his life's goal. He'll be laughing at you folks for all eternity but there will be nothing you can do to him. You can't kill him or beat him up, but you can pi$$ him off here & now by following Christ instead of him. You'll, then, have his full attention...

The people who "know Jesus a bit better", have earned the right to say they have, because they have done their "homework" and found out the truth (among all the lies out there today). It's like those folks with those perfect bodies from working out. They have earned the right to show them off because they put in the hours of exercise...


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> BTW: Neither I nor anyone else here can "save" you.  This needs to be a one-on-one between you and God



Then why do you hound Catholics? 



ItalianScallion said:


> The people who "know Jesus a bit better", have earned the right to say they have, because they have done their "homework" and found out the truth (among all the lies out there today). It's like those folks with those perfect bodies from working out. They have earned the right to show them off because they put in the hours of exercise...



What a load of self-righteous bullcrap.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Then why do you hound Catholics?



Because the RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.

The RCC Catechism has indoctrinated parishioners to "believe" that Mary is alive "bodily" in Heaven, reigning as a "co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," "Benefactress," "Advocate," "Helper" "Queen over all things," etc. and that you can direct devotions to her and she will hear you.

The RCC has indoctrinated you to fear becoming an "anathema" if you deny the titles and position that Mary has been given by the RCC.

We "hound Catholics" to warn them that the RCC has been lying to them all along and that it is Only Christ who is Only Mediator, High Priest and Saviour of your soul.  It is Christ alone (not Mary nor the "saints") who shed His Blood for the remission of your sins and mine.  It is Only Jesus Christ who is to be given all praise, honor and glory for saving our souls once and for all in the here and now.



> For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
> 
> But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
> As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)



The written words of the Holy Bible contain all the essential truths that brings a person to the Salvation Grace that God offers through the Atoning Blood of Christ and there is no mention that Mary would ever join Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," Benefactress," co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," etc.

Jesus is the resurrected Saviour of mankind; There Is Proof of that. 
There is no Biblical proof that Mary resurrected and was assumed up to Heaven. *No Proof - No Truth! *


----------



## Gilligan

hvp05 said:


> Then what?  I can come back on the Forums beaming with the light of my newly cleansed soul only to have my beliefs judged, scolded and altered by those who claim to know Jesus just a bit better than I do.  You guys do seem to have a blast in here, but no thanks.



Dude..I can see you burning all the way from my place.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


>



Man, where's that squawking parrot pic when I need it? So much for "a one-on-one between you and God".


----------



## Wenchy

Starman3000m said:


> Because the RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.
> 
> The RCC Catechism has indoctrinated parishioners to "believe" that Mary is alive "bodily" in Heaven, reigning as a "co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," "Benefactress," "Advocate," "Helper" "Queen over all things," etc. and that you can direct devotions to her and she will hear you.
> 
> The RCC has indoctrinated you to fear becoming an "anathema" if you deny the titles and position that Mary has been given by the RCC.
> 
> We "hound Catholics" to warn them that the RCC has been lying to them all along and that it is Only Christ who is Only Mediator, High Priest and Saviour of your soul.  It is Christ alone (not Mary nor the "saints") who shed His Blood for the remission of your sins and mine.  It is Only Jesus Christ who is to be given all praise, honor and glory for saving our souls once and for all in the here and now.
> 
> 
> 
> The written words of the Holy Bible contain all the essential truths that brings a person to the Salvation Grace that God offers through the Atoning Blood of Christ and there is no mention that Mary would ever join Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," Benefactress," co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is the resurrected Saviour of mankind; There Is Proof of that.
> There is no Biblical proof that Mary resurrected and was assumed up to Heaven. *No Proof - No Truth! *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a dream...
> 
> No wonder my daughter is an atheist.  It's because of people like you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Man, where's that squawking parrot pic when I need it? So much for "a one-on-one between you and God".



Is not Jesus Really God?


> And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)



When you call upon Jesus, you are calling upon God: one-on-One!


----------



## Starman3000m

Wenchy said:


> ...I had a dream...
> 
> No wonder my daughter is an atheist.  It's because of people like you.



Just relaying the message:

Jesus said: *I Am The Way, The Truth, and The Life:* no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

Do you not believe that?


----------



## Wenchy

Starman3000m said:


> Just relaying the message:
> 
> Jesus said: *I Am The Way, The Truth, and The Life:* no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)
> 
> Do you not believe that?




I believe it, but not in the way you preach it.

I'm out.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Is not Jesus Really God?
> 
> 
> When you call upon Jesus, you are calling upon God: one-on-One!



Durp durp! 

Yeah, and? Leave the Catholics to their one-on-one with God already.


----------



## Starman3000m

Wenchy said:


> I believe it, but not in the way you preach it.
> 
> I'm out.



Many times, the Hard Truth is offensive. Better to tell someone that Jesus is the Only One who can save your soul from hell and the wrath of God than to sugar coat it with niceties that gloss over the real truth of where we will all stand before God; for Him or against Him: Saved by His Grace or Lost by one's Rejection of His Grace through Christ.

Just following instructions:



> *2 Timothy, Chapter 4:*
> 
> 1: I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
> 2: Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
> 3: *For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;*4: And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
> 5: But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Durp durp!
> 
> Yeah, and? Leave the Catholics to their one-on-one with God already.




Go ahead, Radiant1, scorn and ridicule all you wish. However, just so you will know and remember this:

*The Church is built on the Only Foundational Rock which is Christ.*

Without the Vatican's false claims of Mary being: "Perpetual Virgin," "Assumed bodily into Heaven,"  "The Queen over all things," "Mediatrix," "Helper," "Advocate," "co-Redemptrix," etc., the RCC crumbles.

The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.


----------



## hvp05

hvp05 said:


> Then what?  I can come back on the Forums beaming with the light of my newly cleansed soul only to have my beliefs judged, scolded and altered by those who claim to know Jesus just a bit better than I do.  You guys do seem to have a blast in here, but no thanks.


My case, rested.


----------



## PsyOps

vraiblonde said:


> But if God is all powerful, then he could simply make Satan disappear.  If He created everything, surely he could get rid of it, right?  So obviously God *wants* Satan around to make people bad, so that they will go to hell.



But why would He?  You could keep your kids in the house all their lives to protect them from the world but you don't.  Why?  Because you want them to experience things - good and bad.  You want them to have choices so they can make their own mistakes and have their own successes.  Why would it be any different with God?

Being all-powerful doesn't mean you have exercise that power on every level.  How is it we can understand why parents give their kids choices but can't understand why God would do the same?


----------



## Bird Dog

Starman3000m said:


> Go ahead, Radiant1, scorn and ridicule all you wish. However, just so you will know and remember this:
> 
> *The Church is built on the Only Foundational Rock which is Christ.
> 
> The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.*


*

I knew you were going to bring the Catholic Church into this somehow.  You went from preaching about salvation to blasting the Catholic Church in 48 posts.

Evangelicalism----------> coming to a strip mall near you soon*


----------



## foodcritic

Zguy28 said:


> I think you know in what context I was speaking.
> 
> the Lord Jesus WILL come like a thief in the night to all people. There is no differentiation in that text.
> 
> Paul contextually says "be ready _when_ He comes suddenly."



You don't think there is a distinction?  I honestly can't read this and come to any other conclusion based on the context of both books...

1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

 4 *But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.* 

I think while the rapture will come like a thief in the night in the sense that the hour/minute (literally) is unkown.  Paul is clearly telling them that believers would have seen all the signs and be prepared.  At least that is what is implied in 1,2 Thes.


----------



## foodcritic

hvp05 said:


> My case, rested.



Christians can have debated and disagree on some issues.  Seems to me that you need to except that move on.  I have friends who I don't agree with on every issue in the bible.  If it's non essential then so be it.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> What a load of self-righteous bullcrap.


Are you mad because you have no muscles to show or do you just have that much hatred for me? I'm still waiting for biblical proof that what we've said is wrong in any way... 


Wenchy said:


> I believe it, but not in the way you preach it.


And, still, your daughter is an atheist so why blame Starman?


----------



## hvp05

PsyOps said:


> How is it we can understand why parents give their kids choices but can't understand why God would do the same?


Because, bottom line, no parent would sentence their child to an *INFINITE* period in *hell* for finite sins.

I think it's interesting that you made that point because so often Christians say the god-human relationship is fundamentally different and not equivalent to the human parent-child relationship.  Despite the fact that that is the best way for us to try to understand, and we even refer to god and Jesus as the "father" and "son", when there is a sticking point in the aforementioned analogy, we are told, "It's different."





foodcritic said:


> Christians can have debated and disagree on some issues.  Seems to me that you need to except that move on.  I have friends who I don't agree with on every issue in the bible.  If it's non essential then so be it.


You should be directing that at Starman and the Italian, because they are the ones who do most of the provoca... err, 'truth-telling' against the RCC.  I sit here trying to weed through it, but so many threads lately have been "debate" free and simply the Literalists vs. the RCC.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Are you mad because you have no muscles to show or do you just have that much hatred for me? I'm still waiting for biblical proof that what we've said is wrong in any way...



I'm not mad, and I have no need to show mighty muscle. I just think you're a self-righteous hypocrite. :shrug:

I don't know who the "we" is you're talking about. It's what YOU said that prompted my comment. There is no evidence or proof that YOU know Jesus better than others. 

Wenchy had a dream...


----------



## PsyOps

hvp05 said:


> Because, bottom line, no parent would sentence their child to an *INFINITE* period in *hell* for finite sins.



God doesn’t sentence us, we sentence ourselves.  We have the choice knowing the benefits and consequences of that choice.  As a parent you give your kids the tools to make decisions, and you hope they make the right ones.  And you know if they make the wrong ones it could result in death.  But you don’t go around force your kid to make every decision your way do you?



hvp05 said:


> I think it's interesting that you made that point because so often Christians say the god-human relationship is fundamentally different and not equivalent to the human parent-child relationship. Despite the fact that that is the best way for us to try to understand, and we even refer to god and Jesus as the "father" and "son", when there is a sticking point in the aforementioned analogy, we are told, "It's different."



The only thing that may be different is God's ability to MAKE things happen; but He chooses not to.  These fundamental behaviors in humans make me always think about how we are created in God’s image.  I don’t think this is meant just that we take on certain physical qualities that God might look like, but we also take on emotional and natural qualities.  I happen to believe parents want to protect their kids to a certain level, but also want their kids to be free to make their own mistakes and hopefully learn from them.  God also realizes that He has to cut the cord and let us make the ultimate decision which could result in death.  I’m currently teaching my son to drive.  I constantly remind him about certain behaviors and actions that, if he doesn’t abide by them, could result in death.  But I also remind him that once he’s alone behind the wheel he is on his own.  The consequences of his actions will be his.  I feel this is a quality engrained in us by God.


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> I knew you were going to bring the Catholic Church into this somehow.  You went from preaching about salvation to blasting the Catholic Church in 48 posts.



Yes, Bird Dog, the discussion was going along about salvation and then in Post #36 Radiant1 asked the following:



			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Then why do you hound Catholics?



And that's the reason the RCC came back into the picture - because the RCC is NOT being truthful to you nor any other parishioner about the True Salvation through Christ that is mentioned in the New Testament teachings of Jesus and His Disciples.

The RCC has added Marian theology and claims that it is the "Church" that Christ founded with Peter being the first "pope". Additionally, it is obvious that the RCC teaches that the Atoning Blood of Christ was not sufficient enough of God's Grace to bring complete forgiveness of your sins in the here and now and that you still have to be sent to a spiritual "half-way house" known as purgatory for further cleansing before being allowed into Heaven.

What's more, the RCC makes it an absolute requirement that you abide by its teachings in order to obtain salvation. 

This is exposing a pseudo-Christian theology for what it is.  Even though you call this "blasting the Catholic Church" it is a Biblical response that believers in Christ are responsible for telling and warning those who are caught up in following false doctrines.

Yes this pertains to the eternal Salvation of your soul and it's something you cannot afford to be wrong about.  I stand by my claim:

The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and *NOT* the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.



> For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
> 
> But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
> As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)



The written words of the Holy Bible contain all the essential truths that brings a person to the Salvation Grace that God offers through the Atoning Blood of Christ and there is no mention that Mary would ever join Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," Benefactress," co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," etc.

Jesus is the resurrected Saviour of mankind; There Is Proof of that. 
There is no Biblical proof that Mary resurrected and was assumed up to Heaven. *No Proof - No Truth!*


----------



## Bird Dog

Starman3000m said:


> Yes, Bird Dog, the discussion was going along about salvation and then in Post #36 Radiant1 asked the following:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's the reason the RCC came back into the picture - because the RCC is NOT being truthful to you nor any other parishioner about the True Salvation through Christ that is mentioned in the New Testament teachings of Jesus and His Disciples.
> 
> The RCC has added Marian theology and claims that it is the "Church" that Christ founded with Peter being the first "pope". Additionally, it is obvious that the RCC teaches that the Atoning Blood of Christ was not sufficient enough of God's Grace to bring complete forgiveness of your sins in the here and now and that you still have to be sent to a spiritual "half-way house" known as purgatory for further cleansing before being allowed into Heaven.
> 
> What's more, the RCC makes it an absolute requirement that you abide by its teachings in order to obtain salvation.
> 
> This is exposing a pseudo-Christian theology for what it is.  Even though you call this "blasting the Catholic Church" it is a Biblical response that believers in Christ are responsible for telling and warning those who are caught up in following false doctrines.
> 
> Yes this pertains to the eternal Salvation of your soul and it's something you cannot afford to be wrong about.  I stand by my claim:
> 
> The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and *NOT* the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.
> 
> 
> 
> The written words of the Holy Bible contain all the essential truths that brings a person to the Salvation Grace that God offers through the Atoning Blood of Christ and there is no mention that Mary would ever join Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," Benefactress," co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," etc.
> 
> Jesus is the resurrected Saviour of mankind; There Is Proof of that.
> There is no Biblical proof that Mary resurrected and was assumed up to Heaven. *No Proof - No Truth!*



I still find you to be a false prophet and a squawking parrot, as others have said.
You bring nothing to the betterment of others. You just condemn.
The only religions that condemn me to hell are yours and Islam.
Hmmmmmm?


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> I still find you to be a false prophet and a squawking parrot, as others have said.
> You bring nothing to the betterment of others. You just condemn.
> The only religions that condemn me to hell are yours and Islam.
> Hmmmmmm?



If there is condemnation against the RCC doctrines and dogma: Marian theology, purgatory, confessions to priests, papal authority, magisterium, etc., *it is context of the Holy Bible that brings this condemnation* against what the Vatican has indoctrinated you to believe.

Regarding Islam: The RCC Catechism proclaims that Muslims adore the same "god" as Catholics.  That's another false teaching since an evaluation of the Qur'an compared to the Holy Bible will reveal that the Al'lah of Islam is *NOT* the same Creator God, Yahweh, of The Holy Bible.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> I'm not mad, and I have no need to show mighty muscle. I just think you're a self-righteous hypocrite. :shrug:
> There is no evidence or proof that YOU know Jesus better than others.


Self righteous means someone who thinks they're superior to or better than the rest of the world. So, according to you, just because I know a lot about the Bible I'm better? I think I'm "better off", but I've never acted self righteous (by it's own definition). At least I didn't call you names and tell you to shut up... Now who would do that on here?

I've given you ample proof that I know Jesus better than many on here. You need to step out and see this objectively. I'm still waiting for YOUR proof that I don't...


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> *it is context of the Holy Bible that brings this condemnation* against what the Vatican has indoctrinated you to believe.



 Only as you interpret it, and you are an obvious bigot.

You don't think Catholics worship the same God as you either, so your opinion about Catholic-Islamic relations is moot.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Self righteous means someone who thinks they're superior to or better than the rest of the world. So, according to you, just because I know a lot about the Bible I'm better? I think I'm "better off", but I've never acted self righteous (by it's own definition). At least I didn't call you names and tell you to shut up... Now who would do that on here?
> 
> I've given you ample proof that I know Jesus better than many on here. You need to step out and see this objectively. I'm still waiting for YOUR proof that I don't...



Frankly, I don't think you do know any more about the bible than anyone else, nor do I think you've proven that you know Jesus better than anyone else either. :shrug:

You say you are all for a personal relationshp with Jesus. You say you can't read men's hearts. Then you say you know more about Jesus than others. That reeks of self-righteousness, hypocricy and even pride...in a bad, bad way.

Enough said about that.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Only as you interpret it, and you are an obvious bigot.
> 
> You don't think Catholics worship the same God as you either, so your opinion about Catholic-Islamic relations is moot.



Perhaps that is the point!  

The RCC Catechism claims that Catholics and Muslims worship the same "god" together. If so, Catholics are placing their faith in the wrong god just as Muslims place their faith in the wrong god.

Do you, Radiant 1, believe as the Catechism teaches - that Islam's Al'lah is the same "deity" as Yahweh of the Holy Bible?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No


*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Perhaps that is the point!
> 
> The RCC Catechism claims that Catholics and Muslims worship the same "god" together. If so, Catholics are placing their faith in the wrong god just as Muslims place their faith in the wrong god.
> 
> Do you, Radiant 1, believe as the Catechism teaches - that Islam's Al'lah is the same "deity" as Yahweh of the Holy Bible?
> 
> [ ] Yes
> 
> [ ] No
> 
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



What are you in grade school?

Do Jews place their faith in the wrong God as well, Starman?

Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in the God of Abraham. We all just happen to believe different things about Him. 

If you insist that we put our faith in a different "god", then maybe it's you who are worshiping a false one.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> What are you in grade school?
> 
> Do Jews place their faith in the wrong God as well, Starman?
> 
> Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in the God of Abraham. We all just happen to believe different things about Him.
> 
> If you insist that we put our faith in a different "god", then maybe it's you who are worshiping a false one.



You haven't studied theological differences have you. 

1.) *Islam:* Al'ah had no son. Thus, Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, according to Islamic theology.

2.) *Orthodox Judaism:* Jesus Christ is a blasphemer for claiming to be the Son of God.  Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier.

3.) *Roman Catholicism:* Jesus is the Son of God but Mary was assumed bodily up to Heaven where she reigns with Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "co-Redemptrix," "Advocate," "Helper," "Benefactress," "Mediatrix," and helps souls get into Heaven.  Christ's Atoning Blood is not sufficient to save one's soul in the here and now and believers (Catholics) must pass through a period of cleansing in a spiritual half-way house called purgatory. Catholics are encouraged to direct devotions to Mary and "the saints"

4.) *The Holy Bible:* Believers are saved in the here and now through repentance and placing faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of The Living God and no one or nothing else.  The Holy Spirit is sent to indwell and seal believers unto the day of Redemption. (John 3:16) (John 14:6) (Ephesians 1:12-14)(Ephesians 4:30)

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> You haven't studied theological differences have you.



Actually, I did, extensively before I chose to be a Catholic, and still do so when I'm in the mood today. I rather like the scholarship of comparative religions and philosophies, as I seek to build up the human community and not tear it down.

You think Jews, Catholics, Muslims, and anyone else who do not believe as you personally do will go to hell. I'll just let that and everything else you've said and done speak for itself. 

Btw, and back to the original topic...I don't believe in a premellinial rapture. 

And with that, I will remove my Catholic self from this thread.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Actually, I did, extensively before I chose to be a Catholic, and still do so when I'm in the mood today. I rather like the scholarship of comparative religions and philosophies, as I seek to build up the human community and not tear it down.
> 
> You think Jews, Catholics, Muslims, and anyone else who do not believe as you personally do will go to hell. I'll just let that and everything else you've said and done speak for itself.
> 
> Btw, and back to the original topic...I don't believe in a premellinial rapture.
> 
> And with that, I will remove my Catholic self from this thread.



The belief I have is in the faith that Jesus Christ taught for mankind to have:  Trust in Him Alone for Salvation for He Is The Way, The Truth and The Life and no one can come unto the Father except through Him. (John 14:6)

Al'lah is not the way; Moses is not the way; and, Mary is not the way.

*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Frankly, I don't think you do know any more about the bible than anyone else, nor do I think you've proven that you know Jesus better than anyone else either. :shrug:  You say you are all for a personal relationshp with Jesus. You say you can't read men's hearts. Then you say you know more about Jesus than others. That reeks of self-righteousness, hypocricy and even pride...in a bad, bad way.


You're all over the place again. I guess you'll just refuse to see the truth, as your statements clearly show. Self righteous me? NOPE! It's more like ignorance on your part. You've indoctrinated yourself into liberal (Oprah like) theology. 

Your posts about muslims and Jews believing in the same god is true but you've failed to realize that they BOTH, also, deny the true Jesus. You've also failed to listen to Jesus words against their refusal to believe in Him (John 8). That's what will keep them out of Heaven. Besides, if they truly did believe in the God of Abraham, they'd see that Jesus is a BIG part of the Godhead...Moses and the Prophets TOLD them. THEY refused to believe it...


Radiant1 said:


> You think Jews, Catholics, Muslims, and anyone else who do not believe as you personally do will go to hell. I'll just let that and everything else you've said and done speak for itself.


Yes they will. Those are Jesus' exact words. Why did He spend soo much time & energy refuting the Jews like He did in John 8? You Radiant1 are the one "tearing down people" here with you liberal (wrong) ideas about salvation. YOU are the one living dangerously here by spreading those lies. 

There will NOT be that many people in Heaven. Heaven will not be crowded compared to Hell. Put down the catechism and open the Bible. It's exactly what God will do on judgment day...


----------



## Bird Dog

ItalianScallion said:


> You're all over the place again. I guess you'll just refuse to see the truth, as your statements clearly show. Self righteous me? NOPE! It's more like ignorance on your part. You've indoctrinated yourself into liberal (Oprah like) theology.
> 
> Your posts about muslims and Jews believing in the same god is true but you've failed to realize that they BOTH, also, deny the true Jesus. You've also failed to listen to Jesus words against their refusal to believe in Him (John 8). That's what will keep them out of Heaven. Besides, if they truly did believe in the God of Abraham, they'd see that Jesus is a BIG part of the Godhead...Moses and the Prophets TOLD them. THEY refused to believe it...
> 
> There will NOT be that many people in Heaven. Heaven will not be crowded compared to Hell. Put down the catechism and open the Bible. It's exactly what God will do on judgment day...



If you do not believe in the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus,  please tell me which God you believe in and when did he make his first appearance to man. I do not know of any Christian religion, except yours, that believe in two Gods, two sets of Scripture, and two Jesus's except yours.

Evangelicalism ---------------->coming to a strip mall near you soon


----------



## Wenchy




----------



## hvp05

PsyOps said:


> God doesn’t sentence us, we sentence ourselves.  We have the choice knowing the benefits and consequences of that choice.  As a parent you give your kids the tools to make decisions, and you hope they make the right ones.  And you know if they make the wrong ones it could result in death.  But you don’t go around force your kid to make every decision your way do you?


Perhaps "sentence" was the wrong word, but I'm sure you understand where I was going.

There is much importance in how you define "right ones" (decisions).  For humans, not every - in fact, not most - [of our] decision put us on the spot to pick the way of life or the way of death.  What if your son grew up to be a Democrat?  What if he grew up hating music?  What if he hated _your_ music?  What if the two of you disagreed on a lot of issues?  Does any of that necessarily mean you would no longer love him?  That you might even disown him?  Do you not think that, even with many differences, the two of you could still watch a Redskins game and have a blast?

This is where the parent-child v. god-human relationship comparison really falls apart:  with humans, there are many shades of gray, but with god there are not.  You may _prefer_ your son to take a career in computer science, but you would probably be perfectly content as long as he was a good person who was happy within himself.  That's pretty much the opposite of what we typically hear god expects.

God lays down the ultimatum, "You go this way or that, and that is *final*."  Human parents do say that, but typically in extreme cases, such as if the child is a drug addict or other user.  When a parent _is_ excessively demanding, we tend to consider them a bit looney, unstable maybe - but not good, effective parents.





ItalianScallion said:


> You've indoctrinated yourself into liberal (Oprah like) theology.


  I'm not sure what this means, but it makes me laugh.

In this theology, do they sacrifice bon bons?


----------



## ItalianScallion

Bird Dog said:


> If you do not believe in the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus,  please tell me which God you believe in and when did he make his first appearance to man. I do not know of any Christian religion, except yours, that believe in two Gods, two sets of Scripture, and two Jesus's except yours.


I only believe in one God. Where did you get 2? He is the God of the OT & NT. Are you having trouble understanding the Godhead (The Trinity)? One God revealed in 3 distinct beings? That's who I believe in...


hvp05 said:


> I'm not sure what this means, but it makes me laugh.
> In this theology, do they sacrifice bon bons?


No bon bons, just infidels...

What it means is simply this: There are not "many ways" to Heaven as Oprah and others claim. There's only one way. I call her teachings: liberal theology (it has nothing to do with politics or Democrats though). Here's what Jesus said about entering Heaven:

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, *and many enter through it*. 
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, *and only a few find it*."  (Matthew 7 v 13). Jesus is that narrow gate...


----------



## hvp05

ItalianScallion said:


> What it means is simply this: There are not "many ways" to Heaven as Oprah and others claim.


Okay, thank you, kind Scallion, sir.


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> Okay, thank you, kind Scallion, sir.


I knew you were waiting like a kid for the ice cream truck, so I replied asap.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

vraiblonde said:


> Apparently it IS God's design, otherwise he'd make it different.



You are mistaken. You have free will. It is your choice to follow God's way or to go to hell.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

vraiblonde said:


> And therefore he wants some people to go to hell, otherwise he wouldn't have given them a choice.



You miss it entirely.

God wants you to love Him. He want you to show you love Him by obeying His commandments.

Love is meaningless if there is no choice to love or not. There is no obedience if there is no choice to obey or not.

God loves you. He wants you to love Him. He wants your love of Him to be meaningful. Therefore you have choice; you can love Him or reject Him. There is no in between.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

vraiblonde said:


> But if God is all powerful, then he could simply make Satan disappear.  If He created everything, surely he could get rid of it, right?  So obviously God *wants* Satan around to make people bad, so that they will go to hell.



He will cast satan and his followers into the lake of fire. It will happen.

God allows for free will. You have it. It is your choice to follow God or to follow satan. You choose one side or the other.

You may maintain that you do not believe in either one. Does not matter. Your lack of belief is a choice. The greatest lie satan ever perpetrated on mankind is that satan does not exist.

By the way, you are welcome to come to church with me any time.


----------



## hotcoffee

Starman3000m said:


> You haven't studied theological differences have you.
> 
> 1.) *Islam:* Al'ah had no son. Thus, Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, according to Islamic theology.
> 
> 2.) *Orthodox Judaism:* Jesus Christ is a blasphemer for claiming to be the Son of God.  Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier.
> 
> 3.) *Roman Catholicism:* Jesus is the Son of God but Mary was assumed bodily up to Heaven where she reigns with Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "co-Redemptrix," "Advocate," "Helper," "Benefactress," "Mediatrix," and helps souls get into Heaven.  Christ's Atoning Blood is not sufficient to save one's soul in the here and now and believers (Catholics) must pass through a period of cleansing in a spiritual half-way house called purgatory. Catholics are encouraged to direct devotions to Mary and "the saints"
> 
> 4.) *The Holy Bible:* Believers are saved in the here and now through repentance and placing faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of The Living God and no one or nothing else.  The Holy Spirit is sent to indwell and seal believers unto the day of Redemption. (John 3:16) (John 14:6) (Ephesians 1:12-14)(Ephesians 4:30)
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



I too believe that the end of the world may be coming very soon.  

I thank you for the simple breakdown here.... however.... number 4 is stated wrong and I need to restate it correctly....

4.) *The Holy Bible:* Believers are saved in the here and now through placing faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of The Living God and no one or nothing else.  The Holy Spirit is sent to indwell and seal believers unto the day of Redemption. (John 3:16) (John 14:6) (Ephesians 1:12-14)(Ephesians 4:30)

If people wait until they repent.... it might be too late....

Salvation is a gift.... we cannot earn it.... we can't be good enough.... we can't be repentant enough.... we can't be kind enough.... there aren't a specific number of tears one must cry in a public forum.... there isn't a particular method of trying to drown oneself....  There is absolutely nothing we can do *to gain salvation *except to *have faith in Jesus Christ and accept it*....*it's a gift....*

Once we receive the gift, the peace and joy that the Holy Spirit brings during the indwelling will bring about the repentence and the desire to be more Christlike.....

Salvation is a gift....


----------



## Starman3000m

hotcoffee said:


> I too believe that the end of the world may be coming very soon.
> 
> I thank you for the simple breakdown here.... however.... number 4 is stated wrong and I need to restate it correctly....
> 
> 4.) *The Holy Bible:* Believers are saved in the here and now through placing faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of The Living God and no one or nothing else.  The Holy Spirit is sent to indwell and seal believers unto the day of Redemption. (John 3:16) (John 14:6) (Ephesians 1:12-14)(Ephesians 4:30)
> 
> If people wait until they repent.... it might be too late....
> 
> Salvation is a gift.... we cannot earn it.... we can't be good enough.... we can't be repentant enough.... we can't be kind enough.... there aren't a specific number of tears one must cry in a public forum.... there isn't a particular method of trying to drown oneself....  There is absolutely nothing we can do *to gain salvation *except to *have faith in Jesus Christ and accept it*....*it's a gift....*
> 
> Once we receive the gift, the peace and joy that the Holy Spirit brings during the indwelling will bring about the repentence and the desire to be more Christlike.....
> 
> Salvation is a gift....




Your additional comments are great - with the following caveat: I believe people must know and acknowledge (through initial conviction of the Holy Spirit) what they need to repent from first and that they need Jesus. It will be a decision for them to then individually go before God with a broken and contrite spirit and ask for God's Forgiveness and to receive the Free Gift of Salvation that is provided through the Atoning Blood of Christ. One needs to invite Christ into their life:


> Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Revelation 3:20)


----------



## tiger78

Acts 2:37 and 38....."What shall we do?"
Answer.....1. Repent
                 2.  Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ  
                 then we receive    Forgiveness of our sins and then the gift of the Holy Spirit.

That is the order....We must do more than Believe and have faith, even the devil and his angels believe.


----------



## Zguy28

tiger78 said:


> Acts 2:37 and 38....."What shall we do?"
> Answer.....1. Repent
> 2.  Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
> then we receive    Forgiveness of our sins and then the gift of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> That is the order....We must do more than Believe and have faith, even the devil and his angels believe.


That statement should not be taken in the sense that it is chronological. It is not. 

The Scripture is clear that even repentance is a gift of God's grace and hence is a product of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. So then, if repentance is a product of regeneration, ask yourself if an unsaved person can be regenerated and still remain unsaved?

Belief/faith and repentance work hand in hand as part of God's grace.

The definitive statement on salvation is by Paul who said "confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
Repentance is an outworking of God's grace. To say a sinner can repent on his own is to heap more weight onto the burden of the law that is already on their shoulders.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

> James 2:18-20 (New American Standard Bible)
> 
> 18But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
> 
> 19You believe that God is one You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
> 
> 20But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?





> Matthew 7:15-23
> 
> 15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
> 
> 16"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
> 
> 17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
> 
> 18"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
> 
> 19"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
> 
> 20"So then, you will know them by their fruits.
> 
> 21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
> 
> 22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
> 
> 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'



Salvation is not earned, but it does bring results. Jesus is not just a Savior. He is Lord; King of kings; Lord of lords.

A plumber can save you from a busted pipe. An electrician can save you from an electrical short. But you do not carry on a personal relationship with them (there may be rare exceptions).

Jesus is Lord. Recognizing that and submitting our will to His is part of the on going relationship. Without relationship; without Lordship, there is not salvation.


----------



## Starman3000m

*The Result: Being Born Again*

Ye Must Be Born Again



> Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)
> 
> 
> That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
> The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (John 3:6-8)
> 
> 
> Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)


----------



## hotcoffee

Starman3000m said:


> Your additional comments are great - with the following caveat: I believe people must know and acknowledge (through initial conviction of the Holy Spirit) what they need to repent from first and that they need Jesus. It will be a decision for them to then individually go before God with a broken and contrite spirit and ask for God's Forgiveness and to receive the Free Gift of Salvation that is provided through the Atoning Blood of Christ. One needs to invite Christ into their life:



So.... a man is out in the dessert... all alone....  He has run out of water and food, he's somehow been injured.  He remembers his mom talking about Jesus. He barely gets out the words.... "Jesus, I believe"

Is he saved?

Another man, goes to the church every time the doors are open.  Cries in anguish over his sins every time the doors are open.... helps everyone else with the sinner's prayer.... has it memorized so that it will be genuine to those who need it... he even got baptized...  

Is he saved?

It's a gift....  Jesus said there would be people who would call to Him and He would not recognize them....  It's a gift... you can't earn it.... How much repenting do you have to do? * You can't possibly repent enough to earn eternal life....*

I read somewhere that there will be people who will not receive salvation.  I read that their hearts had been hardened.  

It's a gift...


----------



## PsyOps

hotcoffee said:


> So.... a man is out in the dessert... all alone....  He has run out of water and food, he's somehow been injured.  He remembers his mom talking about Jesus. He barely gets out the words.... "Jesus, I believe"
> 
> Is he saved?
> 
> Another man, goes to the church every time the doors are open.  Cries in anguish over his sins every time the doors are open.... helps everyone else with the sinner's prayer.... has it memorized so that it will be genuine to those who need it... he even got baptized...
> 
> Is he saved?
> 
> It's a gift....  Jesus said there would be people who would call to Him and He would not recognize them....  It's a gift... you can't earn it.... How much repenting do you have to do? * You can't possibly repent enough to earn eternal life....*
> 
> I read somewhere that there will be people who will not receive salvation.  I read that their hearts had been hardened.
> 
> It's a gift...





Only God knows what's in each of our hearts.  The person in the desert; if he is sincere in his acceptance and died 2 seconds later, I'd say that person is saved.  Again, only God knows this and he has the final say.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

hotcoffee said:


> So.... a man is out in the dessert... all alone....  He has run out of water and food, he's somehow been injured.  He remembers his mom talking about Jesus. He barely gets out the words.... "Jesus, I believe"
> 
> Is he saved?
> 
> Another man, goes to the church every time the doors are open.  Cries in anguish over his sins every time the doors are open.... helps everyone else with the sinner's prayer.... has it memorized so that it will be genuine to those who need it... he even got baptized...
> 
> Is he saved?
> 
> It's a gift....  Jesus said there would be people who would call to Him and He would not recognize them....  It's a gift... you can't earn it.... How much repenting do you have to do? * You can't possibly repent enough to earn eternal life....*
> 
> I read somewhere that there will be people who will not receive salvation.  I read that their hearts had been hardened.
> 
> It's a gift...



But there has to be a change of heart and recognition of the Lordship of Jesus. If there is no change of heart, there is no salvation. If that change of heart (repentance) happens whether it is the instant before a person dies or happened decades before death, then the person will be in God's kingdom according to the Bible.

Salvation cannot be earned and it is not deserved, but there is a prescribed process. It is not prescribed by me or any human; it is prescribed by God Himself.

It is a gift, but you have to accept a gift in order to have it. A gift can be under the Christmas tree. It is for you. But in order for you to posses it you have to get it.

The "It is a gift for all." comes out of the "everyone is saved in the end' which is contrary to what is taught in the Bible. While salvation is a gift and it is available to all, not all will accept the gift.


----------



## UNA

hvp05 said:


> The path is said to be "narrow", indicating to me that _most_ will not gain admittance.  Sux to be us.
> 
> 
> Unless those of us who have remained unassuming and logical are the ones who actually get in.



Wouldn't you love to see the pitiful looks on their faces?


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> I only believe in one God. Where did you get 2? He is the God of the OT & NT. Are you having trouble understanding the Godhead (The Trinity)? One God revealed in 3 distinct beings? That's who I believe in...
> 
> No bon bons, just infidels...
> 
> What it means is simply this: There are not "many ways" to Heaven as Oprah and others claim. There's only one way. I call her teachings: liberal theology (it has nothing to do with politics or Democrats though). Here's what Jesus said about entering Heaven:
> 
> “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, *and many enter through it*.
> But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, *and only a few find it*."  (Matthew 7 v 13). Jesus is that narrow gate...



How is the trinity different from polytheistic religions?

And I thought the bible said something like "the path to heaven is through me [Jesus]". Does that mean if you don't believe you go to hell? OR that Jesus is the one that will judge people in the end. 

not trying to start things; just like to understand people's beliefs!


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> How is the trinity different from polytheistic religions?
> 
> And I thought the bible said something like "the path to heaven is through me [Jesus]". Does that mean if you don't believe you go to hell? OR that Jesus is the one that will judge people in the end.
> 
> not trying to start things; just like to understand people's beliefs!



Polytheistic religions have many gods. Judaism and Christianity have one God, YHWH. YHWH exhibits Himself is three ways; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Here is a Bible verse that covers both your questions.



> John 14:6-14
> 6 Jesus answered, “*I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”*
> 
> 8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
> 
> 9 Jesus answered: “*Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. *How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Polytheistic religions have many gods. Judaism and Christianity have one God, YHWH. YHWH exhibits Himself is three ways; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> 
> Here is a Bible verse that covers both your questions.



I got the trinity and I can read the bible; I wanted and answer from someone here; in their own words. 

I understand what the definition of the trinity is, but how is that any different from many neo-pagan beliefs where one entity is exhibited as the male and female god and goddess then from there as many 'sub' deities?


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> I got the trinity and I can read the bible; I wanted and answer from someone here; in their own words.
> 
> I understand what the definition of the trinity is, but how is that any different from many neo-pagan beliefs where one entity is exhibited as the male and female god and goddess then from there as many 'sub' deities?



As a Christian, my opinion is meaningless. It is God's word that matters. It is the Truth.


----------



## hvp05

UNA said:


> I understand what the definition of the trinity is, but how is that any different from many neo-pagan beliefs where one entity is exhibited as the male and female god and goddess then from there as many 'sub' deities?


Many people will say there is no difference, because the Judeo-Christian system was built on the backs of earlier deities and 'borrowed' things from them.  The trinity godhead is simply a modified version of what previous theists put their faith in.

Christians, naturally will scoff and say there is no relation; human nature played no part in the formation of these beliefs because they were _inspired_.  Depends on which team makes more sense relative to history, etc.  

You may get the biblical literalists to say the beliefs of the RC Church are implicitly polytheistic since, by the literalists claims, RCs see Mary and the saints as sort of "sub-gods" who can help one get into heaven.

Either way, good luck getting a straight answer that isn't all Bible C&P.


----------



## UNA

hvp05 said:


> Many people will say there is no difference, because the Judeo-Christian system was built on the backs of earlier deities and 'borrowed' things from them.  The trinity godhead is simply a modified version of what previous theists put their faith in.



I know, I just wanted his to tell me in his own words thus proving an understanding. But I got the ole cop out; "because god said so". Too bad, I really do like a good theological debate/discussion...there is a lot can ALL learn about our own spirituality just be listening to other people beliefs and not throwing them away. It's what out nation was founded on; freedom to debate. Thomas Jefferson himself said it's the best way to learn; truely learn something. 

People like this just get bent out of shape everytime you equate Christmas to Yule or Easter to ostara. Not my fault early Christians drew in pagans by using their ritual calendar (among many many other things). 

These are the same people who say Islam isn't a relate religion and Jews killed Jesus. :/


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> How is the trinity different from polytheistic religions?
> And I thought the bible said something like "the path to heaven is through me [Jesus]". Does that mean if you don't believe you go to hell? OR that Jesus is the one that will judge people in the end.
> not trying to start things; just like to understand people's beliefs!


An easily understood example would be a family of 3. Dad, Mom & child. They are 3 distinct, separate people but they carry the same last name (in most cases). 

Another is a triangle. 3 distinct angles, and all part of the same triangle.

The main difference with other "belief systems" is that most acknowledge only one god as one entity. Christianity is one God revealed to us as 3 spiritual beings (persons). That is: all 3 separate distinct beings but all 3 are the same God: Father, Son (Jesus) & the Holy Spirit. They are eternal, spiritual beings in that they were not born or created and will never die.

Jesus is fully God and he will be the judge of all on the last day. He proved His claims to Deity by doing the many things He did for the 3 years He was on the earth (many of which humans cannot do). 


hvp05 said:


> Either way, good luck getting a straight answer that isn't all Bible C&P.


----------



## hvp05

UNA said:


> I know, I just wanted his to tell me in his own words thus proving an understanding. But I got the ole cop out; "because god said so". Too bad, I really do like a good theological debate/discussion...there is a lot can ALL learn about our own spirituality just be listening to other people beliefs and not throwing them away.


I know 2A goes to church.  I am sure while he is at church his pastor 'interprets' the Bible to some extent, and tells his own stories to help relate lessons from the Bible to the audience.  If it's all sitting and reading what is already written, there would be no point in anyone getting up early on Sunday, changing out of their perfectly comfy pajamas and going to church.





ItalianScallion said:


>


:uh-oh:


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> I know, I just wanted his to tell me in his own words thus proving an understanding. But I got the ole cop out; "because god said so". Too bad, I really do like a good theological debate/discussion...there is a lot can ALL learn about our own spirituality just be listening to other people beliefs and not throwing them away. It's what out nation was founded on; freedom to debate. Thomas Jefferson himself said it's the best way to learn; truely learn something.
> 
> People like this just get bent out of shape everytime you equate Christmas to Yule or Easter to ostara. Not my fault early Christians drew in pagans by using their ritual calendar (among many many other things).
> 
> These are the same people who say Islam isn't a relate religion and Jews killed Jesus. :/



As a Christian, I am here to serve God. In that, I am open to be used by Him to win souls or any of His purposes. I have never read in the Bible, "Go and debate." To my knowledge, no one has ever been debated into the kingdom of God, so I am not interested in debate.

Politics is a place for debate. Christianity is the realm of faith.


----------



## Radiant1

UNA said:


> I got the trinity and I can read the bible; I wanted and answer from someone here; in their own words.
> 
> I understand what the definition of the trinity is, but how is that any different from many neo-pagan beliefs where one entity is exhibited as the male and female god and goddess then from there as many 'sub' deities?



I don't have any problem discussing it with you, they are legitimate questions.

I'll TRY to keep this simple. In paganism there are various substances of gods/goddesses usually represented by the sun/moon or destroyer/creator, and they are of different natures. For example, one god may have power, another goddess wisdom. Or another example, Zeus was more or less King of all the gods/goddesses and reigned over "heaven", but Zeus did not have the same nature as the others and did not also reign over "hades". They all performed different duties if you will.

In Christianity, God is one substance three persons, and all of the same nature. For example, all three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) have power and wisdom equally. All three reign over the universe equally. Therein lay the difference.



hvp05 said:


> Many people will say there is no difference, because the Judeo-Christian system was built on the backs of earlier deities and 'borrowed' things from them.  The trinity godhead is simply a modified version of what previous theists put their faith in.
> 
> Christians, naturally will scoff and say there is no relation; human nature played no part in the formation of these beliefs because they were _inspired_.  Depends on which team makes more sense relative to history, etc.



Kind of, but not really. There is a relation, but Christianity wasn't "built on the backs of earlier dieties". Ok, well maybe you could say that, but not in the way you mean it. 

Christians say that previous faith practices were the preparation of mankind for God's long and gradual revelation culmination in the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, there are partial truths that can be found in previous practices, just not the fullness of it. Think of it as a gradual unfolding, specifically using the people of Isreal who learned that He is personal to them, and ultimately each one of us.

The entire history of man is one of man's relationship with and understanding of God as He truly is.



hvp05 said:


> You may get the biblical literalists to say the beliefs of the RC Church are implicitly polytheistic since, by the literalists claims, RCs see Mary and the saints as sort of "sub-gods" who can help one get into heaven.



It's a bit of a misnomer, but Christianity is what I affectionately call the paganization of Judaism. That is what makes it universal. That is what makes it for all mankind, not just one race of people. That is what makes it God's final revelation of Himself to mankind. God has put together cohesively all that He has revealed before.



hvp05 said:


> Either way, good luck getting a straight answer that isn't all Bible C&P.



That's the way I see it when taking Christianity from an anthropological point of view. I hope that was straight enough.


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> If it's all sitting and reading what is already written, there would be no point in anyone getting up early on Sunday, changing out of their perfectly comfy pajamas and going to church.


You still wear jammies?? I hope you're a female...


2ndAmendment said:


> I have never read in the Bible, "Go and debate." To my knowledge, no one has ever been debated into the kingdom of God, so I am not interested in debate.


Maybe not, but debates DO happen: Acts 9v29, 15v2, 18v28, Acts 23v9 & Jude 3.


----------



## Starman3000m

FIXED



Radiant1 said:


> It's a bit of a misnomer, but *Roman Catholicism* is what I affectionately call the paganization of Judaism. That is what makes it universal. That is what makes it for all mankind, not just one race of people. That is what makes it God's final revelation of Himself to mankind. God has put together cohesively all that He has revealed before.
> 
> That's the way I see it when taking Christianity from an anthropological point of view. I hope that was straight enough.



Um... There is no "paganization of Judaism" in True Christianity.

The New Testament Jesus Christ is the fulfillment and appearance of the Jewish Moshiach.  It's just that Orthodox Judaism wanted a military leader, like David, to take charge and literally defeat the enemies of Israel. They still await that leader today.

BTW: Orthodox Judaism awaits two Moshiachs: Moshiach ben Yosef (son of Joseph) and Moshiach ben David.  Christ is the manifestation of both but first had to come to be the Lamb of God whose shed Blood atones for the sins of mankind (those who place faith in Him alone) as Moshiach ben Yosef.

The Second Advent - Christ will return as Judaism's Moshiach ben David and set up Peace on earth during His Millenial Reign from Jerusalem and this will happen after antichrist has first had his period of time to wreak havoc in the world.

According to the Holy Bible, things will get worse before they get better for this world. However, we have no need to fear. Placing faith in Christ today assures an individual that no matter what happens, he/she will receive God's Promise of Forgiveness and Eternal Salvation.


----------



## hvp05

ItalianScallion said:


> You still wear jammies?? I hope you're a female...


In my defense, they are flannel.  It's irresistible.  :shrug:




The fluffy bunny slippers probably don't help though.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> FIXED
> 
> 
> 
> Um... There is no "paganization of Judaism" in True Christianity.



Then I suggest you start eating kosher.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Then I suggest you start eating kosher.





Thanks to Yeshua HaMashiach, His followers are no longer bound to the traditional dietary laws of Orthodox Judaism.



> Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
> Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
> Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. *For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:*For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
> 
> If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
> (1 Timothy 4:1-6)



*There Is Only One Truth* (John 14:6)


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> An easily understood example would be a family of 3. Dad, Mom & child. They are 3 distinct, separate people but they carry the same last name (in most cases).
> 
> Another is a triangle. 3 distinct angles, and all part of the same triangle.
> 
> The main difference with other "belief systems" is that most acknowledge only one god as one entity. Christianity is one God revealed to us as 3 spiritual beings (persons). That is: all 3 separate distinct beings but all 3 are the same God: Father, Son (Jesus) & the Holy Spirit. They are eternal, spiritual beings in that they were not born or created and will never die.



Thank you; I appreciate you not just quoting the bible. 

I still, however, don't quite understand how that's different from the pagan deity I gave an example of in a previous post. Still sounds like it could be considered polytheistic by those standards. 

[/QUOTE]
Jesus is fully God and he will be the judge of all on the last day. He proved His claims to Deity by doing the many things He did for the 3 years He was on the earth (many of which humans cannot do). 

 [/QUOTE]

But I wonder which interpretation is correct? The path to heaven is through Jesus. So do you have to believe he's the one and only son of god? Or is he just the judge and any truly good person may still 'get in'?


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> As a Christian, I am here to serve God. In that, I am open to be used by Him to win souls or any of His purposes. I have never read in the Bible, "Go and debate." To my knowledge, no one has ever been debated into the kingdom of God, so I am not interested in debate.
> 
> Politics is a place for debate. Christianity is the realm of faith.



If you don't think debating is in the bible; read job.


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> ... I still, however, don't quite understand how that's different from the pagan deity I gave an example of in a previous post. Still sounds like it could be considered polytheistic by those standards.



Hi Una. Let's try this example.  The Bible states that we (mankind) have been created in the "image" of God. (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6)

Within your being you are comprised of a Spirit, a Soul and a Body.

Are there three Unas, or, just One?


----------



## UNA

Thank you! A Christian who actually thought about their beliefs rather that blind faith!



Radiant1 said:


> I don't have any problem discussing it with you, they are legitimate questions.
> 
> I'll TRY to keep this simple. In paganism there are various substances of gods/goddesses usually represented by the sun/moon or destroyer/creator, and they are of different natures. For example, one god may have power, another goddess wisdom. Or another example, Zeus was more or less King of all the gods/goddesses and reigned over "heaven", but Zeus did not have the same nature as the others and did not also reign over "hades". They all performed different duties if you will.
> 
> In Christianity, God is one substance three persons, and all of the same nature. For example, all three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) have power and wisdom equally. All three reign over the universe equally. Therein lay the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of, but not really. There is a relation, but Christianity wasn't "built on the backs of earlier dieties". Ok, well maybe you could say that, but not in the way you mean it.
> 
> Christians say that previous faith practices were the preparation of mankind for God's long and gradual revelation culmination in the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, there are partial truths that can be found in previous practices, just not the fullness of it. Think of it as a gradual unfolding, specifically using the people of Isreal who learned that He is personal to them, and ultimately each one of us.
> 
> The entire history of man is one of man's relationship with and understanding of God as He truly is.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit of a misnomer, but Christianity is what I affectionately call the paganization of Judaism. That is what makes it universal. That is what makes it for all mankind, not just one race of people. That is what makes it God's final revelation of Himself to mankind. God has put together cohesively all that He has revealed before.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the way I see it when taking Christianity from an anthropological point of view. I hope that was straight enough.





The example you gave in Pagan beliefs and Greek Mythology still seems to classify Christianity as polytheistic though.  OT God was a vengeful god; then NT gives Jesus; the loving aspect.  So we have a "powerful god" and a wise, loving "god" so to speak.  I really like the 'Christians say that previous faith practices were the preparation of mankind for God's long and gradual revelation culmination in the person of Jesus Christ.' though; I've never heard it explained like that and this is (in my experience) the BEST reconciliation of the parallels I've EVER heard!

We my not agree; but I hold your opinions in the highest respect because you are able to explain them without quoting the Bible.  (and I apologize for not capitalizing Bible and so one in previous posts; I was on an iPhone)


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> Hi Una. Let's try this example.  The Bible states that we (mankind) have been created in the "image" of God. (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6)
> 
> Within your being you are comprised of a Spirit, a Soul and a Body.
> 
> Are there three Unas, or, just One?



Ooooh, good point!  But, I though my 'spirit' and my 'soul' were the same...


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> Ooooh, good point!  But, I though my 'spirit' and my 'soul' were the same...



Nope.  The spirit (from God) is what gives LIFE to the Soul.


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> Nope.  The spirit (from God) is what gives LIFE to the Soul.



OK, so (WRT the Trinity example) I have a body, Spirit (god) and a Soul (mine)?  So God is within me; and all of us.  Is He in all living things?


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> OK, so (WRT the Trinity example) I have a body, Spirit (god) and a Soul (mine)?  So God is within me; and all of us.  Is He in all living things?



First, God is the Creator and Giver of Life. However, due to mankind's original fall from Grace, we have all incurred not only the penalty of physical death but also spiritual death and separation from God. Right now your soul is the living breathing essence of your being/personality (you as Una and how others know you)

However, Jesus proclaimed that (although we are alive) we MUST be born again in order to see the Kingdom of God.  By this, He meant that we are spiritually dead but must come alive spiritually in order to be reconciled with God.  You become born again by acknowledging that you believe in your heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and invite Him into your life to be your Lord and Saviour.  When you do that in all sincerity, God's Promise is that He will send His Holy Spirit to dwell within your life and make you a new person.  Your life will be changed and you will then become a Child of God with the Promise of Eternal Life in Heaven.  That's when God's Divine Presence takes residence within you through the Holy Spirit. Until a person does that, he/she will remain spiritually dead and in separation from God.  It is through faith in the Atoning Blood of Jesus that allows us to be reconciled with God.

Jesus proclaimed that He is the Way, the Truth and The Life and that no one can come unto God (The Father) except through Him.  If you want to have the spirit of God within you, you can, by trusting in the New Testament account of Jesus and, in your own words, inviting Him into your life to show you His Truth and make you a child of God.


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> In my defense, they are flannel.  It's irresistible.  :shrug:  The fluffy bunny slippers probably don't help though.


Flannel jammies?  Not in the Summer I hope? 
The bunny slippers don't do a thing for me though, sorry...All I can think of is 


UNA said:


> Thank you; I appreciate you not just quoting the bible. I still, however, don't quite understand how that's different from the pagan deity I gave an example of in a previous post. Still sounds like it could be considered polytheistic by those standards.
> But I wonder which interpretation is correct? The path to heaven is through Jesus. So do you have to believe he's the one and only son of god? Or is he just the judge and any truly good person may still 'get in'?


That's the way God was revealed to us. Whether we fully understand it or not isn't an issue. We just need to accept it because there are many spiritual things we'll never figure out while we're on earth. We do know that there are not 3 Gods. And it's not one body with 3 heads and it's not one being who changes from one form to another whenever necessary. 

That's why the Bible is soo important to have. When read properly, it eliminates personal interpretations. Otherwise anybody could say anything, and there wouldn't be much we could say against them. 

And yes, He is the one & only Son of God. We have to look to Him for eternal life. He is also the final judge of all people. 

One can't look at getting into Heaven as only for those who are good. Actually, compared to God, we're all sinners so none of us are "good". Belief in and following the lead of Jesus will change our lives and make us acceptable to God. We'll still sin and falter while on earth but we are forgiven and acceptable to God now.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> If you don't think debating is in the bible; read job.



I think you did not understand me. Or maybe you are just being obtuse. I did not say there were not debates in the Bible. I said there is no command to Christians to go into the world and debate. Quite the contrary. We are told to go into the world and proclaim and to walk away from those that do not accept our proclamation.



> Matthew 10:7-15
> 
> 7"And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'
> 
> 8"Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.
> 
> 9"Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts,
> 
> 10or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support.
> 
> 11"And whatever city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy in it, and stay at his house until you leave that city.
> 
> 12"As you enter the house, give it your greeting.
> 
> 13"If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace.
> 
> 14"Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.
> 
> 15"Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.


----------



## hotcoffee

2ndAmendment said:


> I think you did not understand me. Or maybe you are just being obtuse. I did not say there were not debates in the Bible. I said there is no command to Christians to go into the world and debate. Quite the contrary. We are told to go into the world and proclaim and to walk away from those that do not accept our proclamation.



In other words there are some people who's heart is not ready or uncalled or cold....  Plant the seed and continue...  even a seed that lands on rock will sometimes grow


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Thanks to Yeshua HaMashiach, His followers are no longer bound to the traditional dietary laws of Orthodox Judaism.



Exactly. Now, you just ponder on that a bit. :ahem:



UNA said:


> The example you gave in Pagan beliefs and Greek Mythology still seems to classify Christianity as polytheistic though.  OT God was a vengeful god; then NT gives Jesus; the loving aspect.  So we have a "powerful god" and a wise, loving "god" so to speak.



Yeah, in the OT God revealed Himself as Creator God, then War God, then Protector God, and then in the NT Loving God; however, He was the same God, Yaweh, not numerous ones. 

I suppose you could say Trinity is somewhat similar, but it's not so close as to actually be polytheistic. Paganism: Three natures, three "persons". Christianity: *One *nature, three "persons". The differences could be said to be subtle but yet have huge implications.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Exactly. Now, you just ponder on that a bit. :ahem:



I have. For one thing, New Testament Christians who are Gentiles are not to be involved in any sort of pagan rituals, celebrations and feasts that honor anyone or anything other than God. The RCC does that a lot with it's veneration of "saints" and elevation of Mary to all the titles given her by the RCC. There is also a difference between eating foods of Gentiles and eating food offered to idols.  So, when you say that "Christianity" is the "paganism of Judaism" you are actually referring to *Roman Catholicism* being that way through the intermingling of Rome's pagan rituals, and traditions with Christianity. And that is a 

As stated: 

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
(1 Corinthians 5:6; Galatians 5:9)


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


>



If you don't eat kosher and follow the Hebrew law, then it's because you've been "PAGANIZED" in the eyes of the Jews, and yes, God decreed it to be so. Re-read this post http://forums.somd.com/4550817-post96.html or this post http://forums.somd.com/4551157-post113.html and see if you can't try to find something that doesn't get your anti-Catholic bigoted panties in a bunch will ya?


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> ...see if you can't try to find something that doesn't get your anti-Catholic bigoted panties in a bunch will ya?



(they're Boxer Shorts)

And as stated, New Testament Christians have not "paganized" Judaism. The RCC however...

BTW: Christianity is not a "Gentile" faith. For Gentiles, it is being grafted into the Messianic sect of Judaism that has accepted and received the Promise of Salvation that had been prophesied with the coming of the Jewish Moshiach (Yeshua HaMashiach) and which Orthodox Judaism still awaits.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> (they're Boxer Shorts)
> 
> And as stated, New Testament Christians have not "paganized" Judaism. The RCC however...
> 
> BTW: Christianity is not a "Gentile" faith. For Gentiles, it is being grafted into the Messianic sect of Judaism that has accepted and received the Promise of Salvation that had been prophesied with the coming of the Jewish Moshiach (Yeshua HaMashiach) and which Orthodox Judaism still awaits.



It's ok if you call yourself a "New Testament Christian" just remember without the Holy Spirit working through the Catholic Church you wouldn't have the NT. 

Christians didn't "paganize" Judaism, God did. If you don't follow Judaic law and eat kosher, etc and so forth, then that's what it is. I don't care what you call it. It's ok Starman, you won't burn in hell for not eating kosher. God approves. It's all good. ats you on the head:

The fact of the matter is, we are saying the same thing. The only difference is that you don't like the word "paganize" because that has connotations for you in your mind that you cannot abide, even if it is reality. You can call Christianity "Messianic Judaism" and I will call Christianity "Paganized Judaism" (the Jews would laugh at both of us). It really doesn't matter, it's mere semantics.

Now, continue with your  . I expect nothing better from you.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> It's ok if you call yourself a "New Testament Christian" just remember without the Holy Spirit working through the Catholic Church you wouldn't have the NT.



Really? You mean that the writings of Jesus' disciples to the 1st Century Churches weren't previously inspired by the Holy Spirit and would not have been considered valid because they hadn't been compiled into book form?

And, if the RCC really believed the New Testament teachings, why did it veer away from the 1st-Century Gospel Truth and introduce extra-Biblical teachings and Marian doctrine that was not part of the 1st Century teachings which were inspired by the Holy Spirit?


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Really? You mean that the writings of Jesus' disciples to the 1st Century Churches weren't previously inspired by the Holy Spirit and would not have been considered valid because they hadn't been compiled into book form?
> 
> And, if the RCC really believed the New Testament teachings, why did it veer away from the 1st-Century Gospel Truth and introduce extra-Biblical teachings and Marian doctrine that was not part of the 1st Century teachings which were inspired by the Holy Spirit?



All of that has already been answered in the Mary thread.

And yet again:


Zguy28 said:


> You know what they say about opinions...


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> we MUST be born again in order to see the Kingdom of God.



Is this generally the basis for the "Born again Christian"?  Are Born Agains different from what I grew up calling Protestant? Or are Born Agains different?



Starman3000m said:


> Jesus proclaimed that He is the Way, the Truth and The Life and that no one can come unto God (The Father) except through Him.  If you want to have the spirit of God within you, you can, by trusting in the New Testament account of Jesus and, in your own words, inviting Him into your life to show you His Truth and make you a child of God.



So do you believe that only Christians go to Heaven? Or only the type of Christian you are?  What about other religions; are some more likely to get in than others?

(I know that sounds like I'm challenging again; but they're really just questions.  It's hard to sound inquisitive rather than condescending in a forum; I hope you don't take any of my questions that way.)  Disagreement =/= disrespect


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> That's the way God was revealed to us. Whether we fully understand it or not isn't an issue. We just need to accept it because there are many spiritual things we'll never figure out while we're on earth. We do know that there are not 3 Gods. And it's not one body with 3 heads and it's not one being who changes from one form to another whenever necessary.
> 
> That's why the Bible is soo important to have. When read properly, it eliminates personal interpretations. Otherwise anybody could say anything, and there wouldn't be much we could say against them.



But God doesn't want us to question?  To try to figure it out thus discovering faith on our own rather than without question?  Is blind faith what a Christian God really wants?



ItalianScallion said:


> One can't look at getting into Heaven as only for those who are good. Actually, compared to God, we're all sinners so none of us are "good". Belief in and following the lead of Jesus will change our lives and make us acceptable to God. We'll still sin and falter while on earth but we are forgiven and acceptable to God now.



So I'll pose the same question to you as I did to Starman:

So do you believe that only Christians go to Heaven? Or only the type of Christian you are? What about other religions; are some more likely to get in than others?

and also, so everyone knows...I know that sounds like I'm challenging again; but they're really just questions. It's hard to sound inquisitive rather than condescending in a forum; I hope you don't take any of my questions that way. Disagreement =/= disrespect 

I really, really don't want to come across as disrespectful to anyone.  I'm just annoyingly inquisitive  And to be fair; if anyone have any questions for me about my faith I will be happy to ask and willing to listen.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> I think you did not understand me. Or maybe you are just being obtuse. I did not say there were not debates in the Bible. I said there is no command to Christians to go into the world and debate. Quite the contrary. We are told to go into the world and proclaim and to walk away from those that do not accept our proclamation.



Well, God and Satan debated as to whether Job could be 'broken'.  Since the Bible says God created us in his image, that seems like a 'go ahead' on debate and discussion.

And I don't appreciate the 'obtuse' comment.  I am trying to learn about your beliefs; I like to know things so I'm asking questions.  If you don't like my questions then don't answer them.  I understand if you don't like the questions I'm raising.


----------



## UNA

hotcoffee said:


> In other words there are some people who's heart is not ready or uncalled or cold....  Plant the seed and continue...  even a seed that lands on rock will sometimes grow



I was actually raised Episcopal.  I developed my own beliefs once I realized it didn't make me a bad person to ask questions.  I am a very analytical and a logical thinker.  My issues lie with the discrepancies between the Bible (namely the creation story) and science.


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> Exactly. Now, you just ponder on that a bit. :ahem:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, in the OT God revealed Himself as Creator God, then War God, then Protector God, and then in the NT Loving God; however, He was the same God, Yaweh, not numerous ones.
> 
> I suppose you could say Trinity is somewhat similar, but it's not so close as to actually be polytheistic. Paganism: Three natures, three "persons". Christianity: *One *nature, three "persons". The differences could be said to be subtle but yet have huge implications.



The differences are subtle indeed!  But in Wicca, (which is a way of life-not a religion-and encourages different interpretations), there is one higher power, two main 'natures' (male, female) and from there many other aspects of the male and female forms.  Yet, Wicca is often classified as a polytheistic belief structure.  Hmmm, so maybe this discrepancy isn't that Christianity is polytheistic but that Wicca is monotheistic....?  IDK, thinking through my keyboard here


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> Really? You mean that the writings of Jesus' disciples to the 1st Century Churches weren't previously inspired by the Holy Spirit and would not have been considered valid because they hadn't been compiled into book form?
> 
> And, if the RCC really believed the New Testament teachings, why did it veer away from the 1st-Century Gospel Truth and introduce extra-Biblical teachings and Marian doctrine that was not part of the 1st Century teachings which were inspired by the Holy Spirit?



The fact of the matter is both Protestants and Catholics picked and chose what Books to include and both sides think the other is wrong (I guess).  What I can't figure out is why there is so much prejudice on both sides?! Aren't both Catholics and Protestants Christian???

I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God (it's that whole science thing for me)...but that's besides the point.  Jesus WAS, no matter what you believe, a real person who-at the very least- preached to love your fellow man.  He never told ANYONE to judge ANYONE.  Mathew 7:1-6 "Judge not lest ye be judged..."


----------



## Radiant1

UNA said:


> My issues lie with the discrepancies between the Bible (namely the creation story) and science.




I don't have a problem with it. I don't read the creation story literally, and view evolution as God prompted. For example, in the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth -- He said [big] bang and it banged. Then you see the progression of plant life, animal life, and human life that has dominion over the rest -- an evolutionary process so to speak. And, six days is metaphor for a long long time. 

The only caveat as a Christian with evolution is that our SOULS did not evolve but rather are given directly by God. I tend to think of Adam and Eve as the first Homo whatever to have been given a soul by God. God breathed on them (ruah), which means breath of life, and therefore are truly our first parents.

Many of the books of the bible, especially Genesis, are trying to put into words something that wasn't fully understood by ancient man. We tend to understand more as the human race progresses -- and use science to do so.



UNA said:


> The differences are subtle indeed!  But in Wicca, (which is a way of life-not a religion-and encourages different interpretations), there is one higher power, two main 'natures' (male, female) and from there many other aspects of the male and female forms.  Yet, Wicca is often classified as a polytheistic belief structure.  Hmmm, so maybe this discrepancy isn't that Christianity is polytheistic but that Wicca is monotheistic....?  IDK, thinking through my keyboard here



Harm none and the three-fold law; I can respect that. It would seeem to me that if the male/female aspects of the higher power are a "nature", then that higher power is actually poly not mono -- a duality -- meaning the Wiccan Higher Power is actually a higher powerS.

I have asked of a Wiccan before, why the THREE-fold law? They didn't have an answer. It seems to me that three is a mystical number in various traditions/philosophies/disciplines. Being Christian, I say because the Triune God can't help but permeate everything, but that still kind of begs the question of why three, doesn't it.


----------



## Radiant1

UNA said:


> Aren't both Catholics and Protestants Christian???



Yes.


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> Is this generally the basis for the "Born again Christian"?  Are Born Agains different from what I grew up calling Protestant? Or are Born Agains different?



Thanks for your questions UNA.

A person can be involved in a "Protestant" denomination and still not be a born-again child of God.

Born-again is having received the indwelling Holy Spirit of God that establishes a personal and spiritual relationship directly with God through acknowledging our need for God, repentance, renouncing this world and placing complete faith and trust in Christ. So, yes, there is a distinct difference between a born again Child of God and a denominational church-goer who has not completely surrendered his/her life to the Lordship of Jesus.  In fact, that's what a born-again person becomes: A Child of God. (Galatians 3:26)  Until then, anybody can call themselves a "Christian"  but yet not truly have been born again as Christ proclaimed one must be. (John 3:3-7)

As stated before, mankind starts out by being spiritually dead and separated from God through the sinful and fallen nature of this world that we have been born into.  Sure, we can carry on in personal relations with family, friends and others around us and attend church every day of the week!  However,  if there is no personal relationship with God all you have is religion and no relationship with God! 

When a person becomes "Born-Again" in Christ, there is a distinct spiritual conversion that comes about through the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit.Every born-again person will be able to share how their life had previously been and how it was changed when they placed their faith in Christ and accepted Him as their personal Lord and Saviour.  There are varying circumstances that lead up to the decision to place faith in Jesus and each one has a different story of how they came to know the Truth that Jesus spoke of.



> So do you believe that only Christians go to Heaven? Or only the type of Christian you are?  What about other religions; are some more likely to get in than others?
> 
> (I know that sounds like I'm challenging again; but they're really just questions.  It's hard to sound inquisitive rather than condescending in a forum; I hope you don't take any of my questions that way.)  Disagreement =/= disrespect



Jesus proclaimed that those who believe in Him as the Way, The Truth and The Life and as the Only way to God will receive Salvation and Eternal Life in Heaven.  Salvation is yours for the asking and by inviting Christ to be your Lord and Saviour.


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> I don't have a problem with it. I don't read the creation story literally, and view evolution as God prompted. For example, in the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth -- He said [big] bang and it banged. Then you see the progression of plant life, animal life, and human life that has dominion over the rest -- an evolutionary process so to speak. And, six days is metaphor for a long long time.



OK, you're my favorite Christian! :LOL: I've never understood why religion cannot be 'combined' with science like that!  It is very refreshing to hear that; the sooner EVERYONE can reconcile things like that the sooner we can all move on from our different ideas and truly understand and except each other, the sooner this world can attain peace...or at least get a little closer.



Radiant1 said:


> The only caveat as a Christian with evolution is that our SOULS did not evolve but rather are given directly by God. I tend to think of Adam and Eve as the first Homo whatever to have been given a soul by God. God breathed on them (ruah), which means breath of life, and therefore are truly our first parents.



So this begs the question (which I'm SURE I'm not the first to ask) did Adam and Eve have more than the two sons?  Did they have daughters? You see where I'm going here...where did their grandchildren come from?



Radiant1 said:


> Many of the books of the bible, especially Genesis, are trying to put into words something that wasn't fully understood by ancient man. We tend to understand more as the human race progresses -- and use science to do so.



Just like many (if not all) other religions; an attempt to understand out world thus making all the world's religions equal (even if one believes their's is right and the others are wrong; one can still respect other beliefs...in my opinion)



Radiant1 said:


> Harm none and the three-fold law; I can respect that. It would seeem to me that if the male/female aspects of the higher power are a "nature", then that higher power is actually poly not mono -- a duality -- meaning the Wiccan Higher Power is actually a higher powerS.



'Nature' might have been the wrong word here; I'm not a practicing Wicca.  I learned about Wicca the same way I'm learning about Christianity here.  Though I do follow MOST of the Wicca beliefs, I am not a witch. Besides, I don't even own a pointy hat :LOL:



Radiant1;4551754I have asked of a Wiccan before said:


> This is indeed one of the big ones (in MY Wicca belief structure)...it's similar to Karma.  If I help you carry in your groceries, then good things will happen.  If I attack your personal beliefs/ideas and judge you for them, then not-so-good things will happen to me.  More specifically [and for actual practitioners] good spell=good things happen to me; bad spell=bad things happen to me.  Think of spells as ritual prayers, that way you can view them as an agent for good (in addition to bad, though this is NOT supported by true Wiccans).  Spells [in my beliefs] are not "I want thing to happen" and it happens, spells are to call on the god or goddess to gain guidance, strength.....just like prayer.  Remember that Wicca is a way of life not a religion; anything I say here are merely my beliefs and are not necessarily true for all Wiccans.
> 
> The "Rule of Three" is also known as the Law of Return.  The three comes in with the Wiccan Rede (too long for here, visit <http://www.wicca.com/celtic/wicca/rede.htm>) with the line
> 
> "Mind the Three-fold Laws you should three times bad and three times good.
> When misfortune is enow wear the star upon your brow."
> 
> As far as why it's three and not [say] five?  I'm not quite sure.
> 
> Wow...that is a loooong post.  Sorry


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> Yes.



I know, I was just making a point


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> Thanks for your questions UNA.
> 
> A person can be involved in a "Protestant" denomination and still not be a born-again child of God.



I know protestant =/= born again, I was raised Episcopal.  I was wondering whether a born again is a type of protestant.




Starman3000m said:


> Born-again is having received the indwelling Holy Spirit of God that establishes a personal and spiritual relationship directly with God through acknowledging our need for God, repentance, renouncing this world and placing complete faith and trust in Christ. So, yes, there is a distinct difference between a born again Child of God and a denominational church-goer who has not completely surrendered his/her life to the Lordship of Jesus.  In fact, that's what a born-again person becomes: A Child of God. (Galatians 3:26)  Until then, anybody can call themselves a "Christian"  but yet not truly have been born again as Christ proclaimed one must be. (John 3:3-7)



So is a non-born again not a 'Child of God"?  I thought we were all God's children, even non-Christians.



Starman3000m said:


> As stated before, mankind starts out by being spiritually dead and separated from God through the sinful and fallen nature of this world that we have been born into.  Sure, we can carry on in personal relations with family, friends and others around us and attend church every day of the week!  However,  if there is no personal relationship with God all you have is religion and no relationship with God!



Original Sin?  I thought that was a Catholic thing...


----------



## UNA

Oooooops, forgot this one....



Starman3000m said:


> Jesus proclaimed that those who believe in Him as the Way, The Truth and The Life and as the Only way to God will receive Salvation and Eternal Life in Heaven.  Salvation is yours for the asking and by inviting Christ to be your Lord and Saviour.



So are you saying non-Christians are going to hell?  What about other Christians (who don't agree with you)?


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> ...So is a non-born again not a 'Child of God"?  I thought we were all God's children, even non-Christians.



We are all God's "creation" but not all are God's Children.  Here is the reason: We all start out being separated from God because of our fallen nature. This leaves all mankind wide open to the influences of Satan (God's enemy) who will do everything to hold on to your soul.  Right now, the non born-again person is "of this world" and not a partaker of eternal life because they have not believed God for the Plan of Salvation that He offers through the Atoning Blood of Christ. 

*Mankind has only two choices:*

Believe God for His Plan of Salvation through Christ and you will become "adopted" as a Child of God. There is no condemnation.
(Explained in Romans Chapter 8)

Disbelieve God and you remain a child of this world under the influence of Satan's deceptions which then end up making you a child of Satan.
(1 Peter 5:8) (John 8:44) 



> Original Sin?  I thought that was a Catholic thing...



"Original sin" first happened before there were any "religions."
Original sin was the act of disobedience by which Adam and Eve believed Satan's deception instead of believing God's warning. From that point on, original sin became a human trait that separates us from God until we are reconciled through faith in Christ. (Romans Ch. 5 will help explain)


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> Oooooops, forgot this one....
> 
> So are you saying non-Christians are going to hell?



That's what Jesus said: And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)



> What about other Christians (who don't agree with you)?



As stated before, UNA, anyone can claim to be a "Christian". I'm not the one that they will answer to:



> Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
> Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
> And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23)


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> "Original sin" first happened before there were any "religions."
> Original sin was the act of disobedience by which Adam and Eve believed Satan's deception instead of believing God's warning. From that point on, original sin became a human trait that separates us from God until we are reconciled through faith in Christ. (Romans Ch. 5 will help explain)



OK, see I thought we were all just born with Original Sin and being baptized saves us (I know you also have to believe and so on...) but without baptism you were sinful.  So do you believe you need to be baptized? Or just believe/be born again...?  And if so, what about the infant that dies minutes after being born; not baptized?


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> That's what Jesus said: And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)
> 
> 
> 
> As stated before, UNA, anyone can claim to be a "Christian". I'm not the one that they will answer to:



So ANYONE who doesn't share your specific beliefs is going to hell; even other Christians?


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> But God doesn't want us to question?  To try to figure it out thus discovering faith on our own rather than without question?  Is blind faith what a Christian God really wants?


Why question the truth? Do you question why 1+1=2? Nothing wrong with having questions though...

Our faith isn't blind faith. Our faith is totally based on the evidence of God. So many of the things that the Bible speaks about have been found to be true. Prophesies, archaeological finds, people, events, etc.


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> So do you believe that only Christians go to Heaven? Or only the type of Christian you are? What about other religions; are some more likely to get in than others?


Yes, only Christians go to Heaven. The problem is that mostly all other religions do not believe in the true God & Jesus. So, if they don't, they aren't Christians. 


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> and also, so everyone knows...I know that sounds like I'm challenging again; but they're really just questions. It's hard to sound inquisitive rather than condescending in a forum; I hope you don't take any of my questions that way. Disagreement =/= disrespect  I really, really don't want to come across as disrespectful to anyone.  I'm just annoyingly inquisitive  And to be fair; if anyone have any questions for me about my faith I will be happy to ask and willing to listen.


You come across as a very nice person...so far. Welcome to the assylum! 


UNA said:


> Aren't both Catholics and Protestants Christian???


Not all Catholics or Protestants are Christians. Many folks can claim to be Christians but aren't necessarily. Only God can make the final decision.


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God (it's that whole science thing for me)...but that's besides the point.  Jesus WAS, no matter what you believe, a real person who-at the very least- preached to love your fellow man.  He never told ANYONE to judge ANYONE.  Mathew 7:1-6 "Judge not lest ye be judged..."


What stops you from believing that Jesus is God's Son? Science (when used properly) fits in with Christianity very nicely.

And He did say we could judge but only in the correct way (John 7v24)
We're told not to judge others salvation but, sometimes, we must make a decision about it by observing what they say & believe. This way we can know whether they need Christ or already have Him.


UNA said:


> OK, see I thought we were all just born with Original Sin and being baptized saves us (I know you also have to believe and so on...) but without baptism you were sinful.  So do you believe you need to be baptized? Or just believe/be born again...?  And if so, what about the infant that dies minutes after being born; not baptized?


Baptism is ONLY a sign of ones salvation, (just like a wedding ring is only a sign of one's marriage). It doesn't save you nor does it forgive ANY sins. 

It's the accountability thing the Bible speaks of. Anyone who dies, without having reached THEIR age of being accountable to God, will not see Hell.
Aborted babies, some handicapped people and people who die after they're born, but before they're accountable, aren't condemned to Hell. You sound like you're not afraid to read the Bible so I'll give you 2 verses about it: Deuteronomy 1:39 and Isaiah 7:15


UNA said:


> So ANYONE who doesn't share your specific beliefs is going to hell; even other Christians?


You have to realize this UNA: There is only one type of Christian in the world.
If someone is a true Christian, they are not going to see Hell. Jesus made it abundantly clear that there are NOT many ways to heaven. There is only one way. Sadly, a lot of good people will not see Heaven because of their unbelief or their wrong one's. It sounds harsh and narrow minded but it's not my rule, it's God's.


----------



## hvp05

ItalianScallion said:


> *Our faith isn't blind faith.* Our faith is totally based on the evidence of God. So many of the things that the Bible speaks about have been found to be true. Prophesies, archaeological finds, people, events, etc.


To me, that contradicts what 2A said in this post.  I interpreted him to say, essentially, there should be no thought, only faith.  That is one of my main grievances against 'believing', in that we (collectively) have a marvelous mind yet are not allowed to employ it.  If we do, there's another sin.


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> To me, that contradicts what 2A said in this post.  I interpreted him to say, essentially, there should be no thought, only faith.  That is one of my main grievances against 'believing', in that we (collectively) have a marvelous mind yet are not allowed to employ it.  If we do, there's another sin.


Hi bunny slippers. How's those flannel jammies working out? Keepin' you warm? It's cold down here... 

I'll let 2A explain himself but here's more of the story: We're allowed to use our "marvelous minds" but God made it so we don't have to use them all the time. 

Some things we believe in with a childlike faith because we haven't seen them. Other things we believe AFTER we've seen the evidence. After seeing some things happen in my life, I started to believe that there was something about God that I needed to learn more about. I saw things happen that were kind of "spooky" (for lack of a better word) but not scary like ghosts or demons. 

Later I saw how the Bible spoke soo clearly about things that were happening in the world, so I had to check it out more. I think all of us believe in some things blindly, and other things we believe after examining the evidence. Just like the tornado in LaPlata in 2002. I didn't see it (I just missed it by about 15 minutes) but I saw the "evidence" it left behind.


----------



## Radiant1

UNA said:


> So this begs the question (which I'm SURE I'm not the first to ask) did Adam and Eve have more than the two sons?  Did they have daughters? You see where I'm going here...where did their grandchildren come from?



The world obviously got populated somehow didn't it.  There is an extra-biblical writing (Jubilees) that states Cain had a sister and reproduced with her. I tend to think that Cain (having a soul) reproduced children with someone/s (non-soul) in the land of Nod after he was cast out to wander the Earth. By nature of Cain having a soul, God gave them to his children too. The fact of the matter is, we can only speculate. The whole story of Cain and Abel can also be understood as an archetype for good and evil in human nature, which if you think about it is what Adam and Eve brought upon themselves (and us).



ItalianScallion said:


> Yes, only Christians go to Heaven. The problem is that mostly all other religions do not believe in the true God & Jesus. So, if they don't, they aren't Christians.



UNA, I happen to believe that a non-Christian who TO NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN has never heard the gospel or understood it properly and has lived a moral life regardless is not held accountable for their disbelief. It is by the grace of Christ that they MAY still obtain Heaven. Perhaps a very very long time in purgatory first. God is just AND merciful.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Well, God and Satan debated as to whether Job could be 'broken'.  Since the Bible says God created us in his image, that seems like a 'go ahead' on debate and discussion.
> 
> And I don't appreciate the 'obtuse' comment.  I am trying to learn about your beliefs; I like to know things so I'm asking questions.  If you don't like my questions then don't answer them.  I understand if you don't like the questions I'm raising.



I take it you are not being obtuse and your questions are legitimate rather than leading. Many come in this forum just to bait people into arguments.

As to debate, just because we can do something does not mean we should. There are many things that are lawful for Christians to do but are not Spiritually profitable.


> 1 Corinthians 6:12All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.



I would rather spend time leading someone to Christ rather than debating doctrine and theology.

Now here are some quick answers:

Jesus said you must be born again of the Spirit to get into the kingdom of heaven.


> John 3:3-8
> 
> 3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
> 
> 4Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"
> 
> 5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
> 
> 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
> 
> 7"Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
> 
> 8"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."



There are 144000 Jews, 12000 from each of the 12 tribes that will get into heaven; they are not Christians in my understanding of scripture.





> Revelation 7:4-8
> 
> 4And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:
> 
> 5from the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand were sealed, from the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand, from the tribe of Gad twelve thousand,
> 
> 6from the tribe of Asher twelve thousand, from the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand, from the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand,
> 
> 7from the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand, from the tribe of Levi twelve thousand, from the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand,
> 
> 8from the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand, from the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand, from the tribe of Benjamin, twelve thousand were sealed.



Those that have not heard of Jesus and been given an opportunity to accept Him as Savior and Lord will be judged according to whether they have been observing the law and Spirit of God without having been given knowledge.





> Romans 2:11-16
> 
> 11For there is no partiality with God.
> 
> 12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
> 
> 13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
> 
> 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
> 
> 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
> 
> 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> I was actually raised Episcopal.  I developed my own beliefs once I realized it didn't make me a bad person to ask questions.  I am a very analytical and a logical thinker.  My issues lie with the discrepancies between the Bible (namely the creation story) and science.


When I was in college, I went through a period of questioning what the Bible said and what I was being taught in class.

I came to realize I was not allowing God to be God. There is only difference between creation and science when man imposes man's limitations on God. Consider this, since God is the creator of the universe, can He not create things appearing already old? Is it possible that the Grand Canyon was washed out while the sand was still loose by the waters of the flood of Noah retreating and _then_ the sand hardened?

We are to have the faith of a child. I think that the account of creation is a stumbling block to those that do not have the faith of a child. 

There are many accounts in the Bible that are contrary to science. But science is the understanding of man of God's creation. Science has changed its opinion many times over the years. God is the Creator. He created the universe and the physical laws by which it operates. He is the "Legislator" of those laws; He can change or suspend them any time He chooses.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

hvp05 said:


> To me, that contradicts what 2A said in this post.  I interpreted him to say, essentially, there should be no thought, only faith.  That is one of my main grievances against 'believing', in that we (collectively) have a marvelous mind yet are not allowed to employ it.  If we do, there's another sin.



Well the original sin was eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I use my brain. God gave it to me to use. I use it to write computer programs, solve engineering problems, and other "brainiac" stuff. But belief in God is a matter of faith, childlike faith.

So I use my brain. When man poses a contradiction to God's word, I use my brain again, to chose to believe God rather than a man.


----------



## Starman3000m

2ndAmendment said:


> ...[*]There are 144000 Jews, 12000 from each of the 12 tribes that will get into heaven; they are not Christians in my understanding of scripture.
> [*]Those that have not heard of Jesus and been given an opportunity to accept Him as Savior and Lord will be judged according to whether they have been observing the law and Spirit of God without having been given knowledge.




Actually, 2A, I believe this is in reference to 144,000 Jews (who have not been involved with women) that will be evangelizing on earth during Christ's Millennial Reign on earth. (not heaven yet) I'm thinking these will be Messianic Jews (not Orthodox) who had previously accepted Yeshua as their Moshiach.

As you cited, there will be 12,000 from each tribe as stated in Revelation but their activity is here on earth during the thousand years.

I once heard someone refer to them as 144,000 "Billy Graham's" walking here on earth. 

Revelation, Chapter 14 explains this but here is the start:



> *Revelation 14:*
> 1: And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
> 2: And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
> 3: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
> 4: These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

Starman3000m said:


> Actually, 2A, I believe this is in reference to 144,000 Jews (who have not been involved with women) that will be evangelizing on earth during Christ's Millennial Reign on earth. (not heaven yet)
> 
> As you cited, there will be 12,000 from each tribe as stated in Revelation but there activity is here on earth.
> 
> I once heard someone refer to them as 144,000 "Billy Graham's" walking here on earth.
> 
> Revelation, Chapter 14 explains this but here is the start:



I understand that when they are sealed they are on the earth, but since they are sealed, they will be in God's kingdom.


----------



## Starman3000m

2ndAmendment said:


> I understand that when they are sealed they are on the earth, but since they are sealed, they will be in God's kingdom.



Yes, but during the Millennial Reign, lots more Jews of Orthodox expectation will know that Yeshua is Moshiach and in the final analysis, there will be more than just the 144,000 Jews who will be saved.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

Starman3000m said:


> Yes, but during the Millennial Reign, lots more Jews of Orthodox expectation will know that Yeshua is Moshiach and in the final analysis, there will be more than just the 144,000 Jews who will be saved.



Then they will be Christians that are Israelites, not Jews. Judaism is a religion. A Jew is a follower of Judaism. Anyone can become a Jew. Only an Israelite is of the 12 tribes.


----------



## Starman3000m

2ndAmendment said:


> Then they will be Christians that are Israelites, not Jews. Judaism is a religion. A Jew is a follower of Judaism. Anyone can become a Jew. Only an Israelite is of the 12 tribes.





Correcto Mundo.  In the edit to my first post on this I added that the 144,000will most likely be "Messianic Jews." I should have stated Jews and Israelites.  The people from the tribe of Judah are referred to as Jews, the rest of the tribes are Israelites.


----------



## Zguy28

Starman3000m said:


> Correcto Mundo.  In the edit to my first post on this I added that the 144,000will most likely be "Messianic Jews." I should have stated Jews and Israelites.  The people from the tribe of Judah are referred to as Jews, the rest of the tribes are Israelites.


Or it is a symbolic number. 

12 deals with perfection.
1000 is symbolic of great numbers.

Together, the 12,000 from from the 12 tribes symbolically could very easily mean ALL of God's people, Jew and Gentile, who are sealed and made perfect in Christ's righteousness.

Plus, in the very next section, John says he sees "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation".


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> The world obviously got populated somehow didn't it.  There is an extra-biblical writing (Jubilees) that states Cain had a sister and reproduced with her. I tend to think that Cain (having a soul) reproduced children with someone/s (non-soul) in the land of Nod after he was cast out to wander the Earth. By nature of Cain having a soul, God gave them to his children too. The fact of the matter is, we can only speculate. The whole story of Cain and Abel can also be understood as an archetype for good and evil in human nature, which if you think about it is what Adam and Eve brought upon themselves (and us).


Who has a "non-soul"?? All humans have souls...
Cain had to have got it on with a sister or a cousin because this was back before incest became a prohibited act.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> UNA, I happen to believe that a non-Christian who TO NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN has never heard the gospel or understood it properly and has lived a moral life regardless is not held accountable for their disbelief. It is by the grace of Christ that they MAY still obtain Heaven. Perhaps a very very long time in purgatory first. God is just AND merciful.


So God couldn't reach everyone with His Word, eh? Some folks will get in because God was too busy and just couldn't get to everyone? 
Please define "good" to me. 
How good? 
How much good must they do? 
How will they know when they've been good enough? 
Can you show me ANY writings that say that? Please? Thanks love...

Purgatory? Is that in Mormonism? How can they go to a place that doesn't exist?  Don't confuse UNA now; she's looking for the right answers here


----------



## Starman3000m

Zguy28 said:


> Or it is a symbolic number.
> 
> 12 deals with perfection.
> 1000 is symbolic of great numbers.
> 
> Together, the 12,000 from from the 12 tribes symbolically could very easily mean ALL of God's people, Jew and Gentile, who are sealed and made perfect in Christ's righteousness.
> 
> Plus, in the very next section, John says he sees "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation".



No, the context does not seem to be referring to be a symbolic number because the 144,000 are described specifically as being "virgin men" (12,000 from each Tribe of Israel) who will be part of the Millennial Reign of Jesus (Yeshua HaMashiach).

Take a look see:



> Revelation 14:
> 3: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
> 4: *These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.* These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
> 5: And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.



These appear to be as has been described as 144,000 "Billy Grahams" ministering throughout the world in direct conjunction with Jesus' rule from Jerusalem during the Millennium.

This will be the time that Orthodox Jews have been looking forward to - when  the wolf and the lamb cozy up together (Isaiah 65:25) and when swords are turned into plowshares. (Isaiah 2:4; Joel 3:10; Micah 4:3) 

During that time period there will truly be *God's Peace on Earth and Goodwill Toward men*. 

EDIT: *Note* - here is another explanation about the 144,000 that sounds more in line with the description of Revelation Ch. 14 - this would be during the Tribulation Period.



> *What is the Purpose of the 144,000?*What is the role of these 144,000 Jews during the Tribulation?
> 
> What is their purpose? All the text says is that they will be "bond-servants of God" (Revelation 7:3).
> But the context indicates that they will serve the Lord as evangelists. I say this because their description is followed immediately by the description of "a great multitude which no one can count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues" (Revelation 7:9). John sees this great host of people in Heaven standing before the throne of God, and he asks "Who are they, and from where have they come?" (Revelation 7:13). He is told that they are people who have come out of the Great Tribulation who "have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:14).
> In other words, this multitude of Gentiles are those who accept Jesus after the Rapture and who are martyred for their faith during the Tribulation.
> Because they are placed adjacent to the 144,000 believing Jews, the implication is that they are converted by the Jews during the Tribulation.
> 
> Articles - Prophecy - Revelation - The Mysterious 144,000




Might be info for a new discussion thread?


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Who has a "non-soul"?? All humans have souls...
> Cain had to have got it on with a sister or a cousin because this was back before incest became a prohibited act.



Yes, all humans have souls. Whether decended from "apes" or incest, neither one is very palatable. As I said, it's all speculatation.



ItalianScallion said:


> So God couldn't reach everyone with His Word, eh? Some folks will get in because God was too busy and just couldn't get to everyone?
> Please define "good" to me.
> How good?
> How much good must they do?
> How will they know when they've been good enough?
> Can you show me ANY writings that say that? Please? Thanks love...
> 
> Purgatory? Is that in Mormonism? How can they go to a place that doesn't exist?  Don't confuse UNA now; she's looking for the right answers here



Good is NOT being a smarmy game-playing asswipe as your example above.

Caholic teaching for UNA:


> "Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. *Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life*." (Lumen gentium 16)



God is BOTH just AND merciful, loving AND reasonable.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Why question the truth? Do you question why 1+1=2? Nothing wrong with having questions though...



I'm a mathematician, so actually I do question things like does 1+1 really equal 2 



ItalianScallion said:


> You come across as a very nice person...so far. Welcome to the assylum!



Thanks! 



ItalianScallion said:


> What stops you from believing that Jesus is God's Son? Science (when used properly) fits in with Christianity very nicely.



I have been able to find many instances where Bible stories have scientific/historical backing.  I love the shows about it; there is a really good one about the plagues!  But how can a deity impregnate a virgin?



ItalianScallion said:


> And He did say we could judge but only in the correct way (John 7v24)
> We're told not to judge others salvation but, sometimes, we must make a decision about it by observing what they say & believe. This way we can know whether they need Christ or already have Him.



How do you interpret: “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Luke 6:37

...if not but that one shouldn't judge others? Or do you mean that we judge as in "that person just slapped his wife, he's probably not a nice person so I won't go hang out with him."  In which case; of course we judge like that; that's self-preservation!



ItalianScallion said:


> You sound like you're not afraid to read the Bible so I'll give you 2 verses about it: Deuteronomy 1:39 and Isaiah 7:15



Oh, so basically, one can't be 'condemned' if one does not know better.  That makes sense.  But what about Cain?



ItalianScallion said:


> You have to realize this UNA: There is only one type of Christian in the world.
> If someone is a true Christian, they are not going to see Hell. Jesus made it abundantly clear that there are NOT many ways to heaven. There is only one way. Sadly, a lot of good people will not see Heaven because of their unbelief or their wrong one's. It sounds harsh and narrow minded but it's not my rule, it's God's.



I guess I just don't like the idea that my gay uncle and my Jewish friends are going to Hell.  And I suppose-by this belief-so am I!  But thank you for not telling me that I am  and continuing to have this discussion! You seem like a much more open-minded Christian than a lot that I've run into!


----------



## UNA

hvp05 said:


> To me, that contradicts what 2A said in this post.  I interpreted him to say, essentially, there should be no thought, only faith.  That is one of my main grievances against 'believing', in that we (collectively) have a marvelous mind yet are not allowed to employ it.  If we do, there's another sin.



That's how I took it too


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Hi bunny slippers. How's those flannel jammies working out? Keepin' you warm? It's cold down here...
> 
> I'll let 2A explain himself but here's more of the story: We're allowed to use our "marvelous minds" but God made it so we don't have to use them all the time.
> 
> Some things we believe in with a childlike faith because we haven't seen them. Other things we believe AFTER we've seen the evidence. After seeing some things happen in my life, I started to believe that there was something about God that I needed to learn more about. I saw things happen that were kind of "spooky" (for lack of a better word) but not scary like ghosts or demons.
> 
> Later I saw how the Bible spoke soo clearly about things that were happening in the world, so I had to check it out more. I think all of us believe in some things blindly, and other things we believe after examining the evidence. Just like the tornado in LaPlata in 2002. I didn't see it (I just missed it by about 15 minutes) but I saw the "evidence" it left behind.



That's just it, I like evidence!

Glad you missed the tornado though!


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> I'm a mathematician, so actually I do question things like does 1+1 really equal 2



Great! All the more reason that a mathematician can still question yet come to comprehend that *1 x 1 x 1* = *ONE*


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> The world obviously got populated somehow didn't it.  There is an extra-biblical writing (Jubilees) that states Cain had a sister and reproduced with her. I tend to think that Cain (having a soul) reproduced children with someone/s (non-soul) in the land of Nod after he was cast out to wander the Earth. By nature of Cain having a soul, God gave them to his children too. The fact of the matter is, we can only speculate. The whole story of Cain and Abel can also be understood as an archetype for good and evil in human nature, which if you think about it is what Adam and Eve brought upon themselves (and us).



What about evolution?



Radiant1 said:


> UNA, I happen to believe that a non-Christian who TO NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN has never heard the gospel or understood it properly and has lived a moral life regardless is not held accountable for their disbelief. It is by the grace of Christ that they MAY still obtain Heaven. Perhaps a very very long time in purgatory first. God is just AND merciful.



So I still might go to heaven? Woohoo!

I happen to believe that we all go; unless there really are evil people...then they spend a lot of time between worlds (like the Wicca Summerland) and come to terms with their deeds.  Hopefully they will!


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> I take it you are not being obtuse and your questions are legitimate rather than leading. Many come in this forum just to bait people into arguments.
> 
> As to debate, just because we can do something does not mean we should. There are many things that are lawful for Christians to do but are not Spiritually profitable.
> 
> 
> I would rather spend time leading someone to Christ rather than debating doctrine and theology.
> 
> Now here are some quick answers:
> 
> Jesus said you must be born again of the Spirit to get into the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> There are 144000 Jews, 12000 from each of the 12 tribes that will get into heaven; they are not Christians in my understanding of scripture.
> Those that have not heard of Jesus and been given an opportunity to accept Him as Savior and Lord will be judged according to whether they have been observing the law and Spirit of God without having been given knowledge.



I'm not being obtuse, I really don't like you calling me that.  And I'm certainly not baiting anyone!  Just inquisitive, I'm a thinker...can't help it.  And I can read the Bible on my own; I appreciate a few examples but I wish you could explain things without relying on the Bible so heavily.  It sounds like you don't fully understand it.  (not saying you don't, just saying it sounds like it)


----------



## Radiant1

UNA said:


> What about evolution?



God is behind the process of evolution; He got the ball rolling so to speak. Genesis states God first made the Earth, then plants, then animals, then man. <--- Evolution. It doesn't mention apes or neanderthals specifically, however. 



UNA said:


> So I still might go to heaven? Woohoo!



I can't say either way, but yes it's possible. 



UNA said:


> I happen to believe that we all go; unless there really are evil people...then they spend a lot of time between worlds (like the Wicca Summerland) and come to terms with their deeds.  Hopefully they will!



Summerland, kind of like purgatory, but with those ever present subtle differences. If you ask, I'll explain.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> When I was in college, I went through a period of questioning what the Bible said and what I was being taught in class.
> 
> I came to realize I was not allowing God to be God. There is only difference between creation and science when man imposes man's limitations on God. Consider this, since God is the creator of the universe, can He not create things appearing already old? Is it possible that the Grand Canyon was washed out while the sand was still loose by the waters of the flood of Noah retreating and _then_ the sand hardened?
> 
> We are to have the faith of a child. I think that the account of creation is a stumbling block to those that do not have the faith of a child.
> 
> There are many accounts in the Bible that are contrary to science. But science is the understanding of man of God's creation. Science has changed its opinion many times over the years. God is the Creator. He created the universe and the physical laws by which it operates. He is the "Legislator" of those laws; He can change or suspend them any time He chooses.



I don't have the faith of a child because I am an adult.

Science changes often because we learn new things all the time; if it didn't change with new discoveries it would be religion.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Who has a "non-soul"?? All humans have souls...
> Cain had to have got it on with a sister or a cousin because this was back before incest became a prohibited act.



That's where I was going...



ItalianScallion said:


> So God couldn't reach everyone with His Word, eh? Some folks will get in because God was too busy and just couldn't get to everyone?
> Please define "good" to me.
> How good?
> How much good must they do?
> How will they know when they've been good enough?
> Can you show me ANY writings that say that? Please? Thanks love...



There is not an amount of good that must be done to be considered good; you just need to be good in general i.e. not bad.



ItalianScallion said:


> Don't confuse UNA now; she's looking for the right answers here



I'm not looking for answers, just discussing


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> "Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life." (Lumen gentium 16).



Though, as I've said before, I do not label myself as a Christian, this more general description of God sits well with what I believe.  God, whether Christian or otherwise, is loving and accepting.  My god would never condemn a person to hell (or whatever bad place you may or may not believe in) just because they don't agree with him/her.

I also seem to recall Jesus forgiving sinners; knowing that hey have not yet received the gift of faith.  This implies to me, that only the truly good go to Heaven (or whatever good place you may or may not believe in).

Maybe I should have been Catholic


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> Great! All the more reason that a mathematician can still question yet come to comprehend that *1 x 1 x 1* = *ONE*



oh, hahahaha, i get it...it's the Trinity 

if you're going to equate religion to mathematics you should say 1+1+1 (Father, Son AND Holy Spirit...AND implies summation) and so by your logic 1+1+1=1


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> God is behind the process of evolution; He got the ball rolling so to speak. Genesis states God first made the Earth, then plants, then animals, then man. <--- Evolution. It doesn't mention apes or neanderthals specifically, however.



That works, but evolution doesn't posit that we evolved from apes rather primates.  We evolved from a common ancestor.  



Radiant1 said:


> I can't say either way, but yes it's possible.



I know you can't say...in fact no one can nor should they.  But it's mice you know you don't assume that I am just because I don't agree! Thanks!



Radiant1 said:


> Summerland, kind of like purgatory, but with those ever present subtle differences. If you ask, I'll explain.



Yes, the Summerland is very much like Purgatory.  The Summerland (or something akin) is very common in pagan as well as neo-pagan belief structures.  I've always liked the idea because it give people a chance to come to terms with life in a peaceful place, no distractions and ideally a manifestation of the Deity to guide their journey.  Sounds a lot nicer than Purgatory though.


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> Though, as I've said before, I do not label myself as a Christian, this more general description of God sits well with what I believe.  God, whether Christian or otherwise, is loving and accepting.  My god would never condemn a person to hell (or whatever bad place you may or may not believe in) just because they don't agree with him/her.
> 
> I also seem to recall Jesus forgiving sinners; knowing that hey have not yet received the gift of faith.  This implies to me, that only the truly good go to Heaven (or whatever good place you may or may not believe in).
> 
> Maybe I should have been Catholic



Universalism is the theological concept that all roads lead to God and that everyone is going to be saved in the end.  If that were the case, there would not have been the need for Christ to shed His Blood as an Atonement and proclaim that He is The Way the Truth and The Life and that no one can come to God except through Him. (John 14:6)

You may wish to believe as the RCC does, but the Holy Bible proclaims that there will be Judgment upon Satan, Satan's angels and those of mankind who rejected God's Plan of Salvation through Christ.  If Jesus is the Final Judge, then He will know who placed faith in Him and who rejected Him.

Just one example of God's Judgment upon those who chose other ways instead of God's Way:



> 5: I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
> 6: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
> 7: Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
> 8: Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
> 9: Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
> 10: But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
> 11: Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
> 12: These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
> 13: Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
> 14: And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
> 15: To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
> 16: These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 17: But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 18: How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
> 19: These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
> 20: But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 21: Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 22: And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 23: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 24: Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
> 25: To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> Universalism is the theological concept that all roads lead to God and that everyone is going to be saved in the end.  If that were the case, there would not have been the need for Christ to shed His Blood as an Atonement and proclaim that He is The Way the Truth and The Life and that no one can come to God except through Him. (John 14:6)
> 
> You may wish to believe as the RCC does, but the Holy Bible proclaims that there will be Judgment upon Satan, Satan's angels and those of mankind who rejected God's Plan of Salvation through Christ.  If Jesus is the Final Judge, then He will know who placed faith in Him and who rejected Him.



Maybe he didn't need to (I know, I'm a terrible person just for saying that).  It should be obvious at this point that I don't believe in the Bible as the word of God.  It is a really good stories with lots of good things to live by.  For example; Kosher rules seem to be largely for people's health and safety...like how certain containers could not be used to store food because the food may seep into the material i.e. difficult to clean.  Therefore, less food borne illnesses!


----------



## UNA

I apologize for all the consecutive posts.  I don't like to participate in this thread at work even on a break because I cannot give it my undivided attention.


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> oh, hahahaha, i get it...it's the Trinity
> 
> if you're going to equate religion to mathematics you should say 1+1+1 (Father, Son AND Holy Spirit...AND implies summation) and so by your logic 1+1+1=1



The value of the resulting integer remains constant in multiplication. Thus 1 x 1 x 1 = *1* 



> Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is One LORD:
> (Deuteronomy 6:4)
> 
> For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)



Remember: are there 3 UNA's or ONE UNA?


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> The value of the resulting integer remains constant in multiplication. Thus 1 x 1 x 1 = *1*



You missed the point...



Starman3000m said:


> Remember: are there 3 UNA's or ONE UNA?



And there are one of me but no one is living their lives according to my teachings; I am not a higher power (to bad too, I'd be a really cool on  )


----------



## 2ndAmendment

Zguy28 said:


> Or it is a symbolic number.
> 
> 12 deals with perfection.
> 1000 is symbolic of great numbers.
> 
> Together, the 12,000 from from the 12 tribes symbolically could very easily mean ALL of God's people, Jew and Gentile, who are sealed and made perfect in Christ's righteousness.
> 
> Plus, in the very next section, John says he sees "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation".



And the great multitude that no one can number are Christians; "they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."


> Revelation 7:9-17
> 
> 9After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;
> 
> 10and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."
> 
> 11And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,
> 
> 12saying, "Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever Amen."
> 
> 13Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?"
> 
> 14I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
> 
> 15"For this reason, they are before the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them.
> 
> 16"They will hunger no longer, nor thirst anymore; nor will the sun beat down on them, nor any heat;
> 
> 17for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes."


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> You missed the point...



Really? 




> And there are one of me but no one is living their lives according to my teachings; I am not a higher power (to bad too, I'd be a really cool on  )



What would your world be like UNA?

What would you do with people who deliberately disobeyed your guidance and shunned the love you have for them and chose to side with someone else and turn against you?


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> What about evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> *So I still might go to heaven? Woohoo!*
> 
> I happen to believe that we all go; unless there really are evil people...then they spend a lot of time between worlds (like the Wicca Summerland) and come to terms with their deeds.  Hopefully they will!



I hope you will, but it will be through accepting Jesus as Savior and Lord since you cannot claim ignorance. And as to the idea that most or everyone gets saved, that is contrary to what Jesus said. The way is narrow and few enter.

God is Holy. Humans cannot even comprehend Holy. Holy is not human. Holy is not us. Our greatest goodness does not measure up to Holy in any way; our greatest goodness is as, according to the Bible, menstrual rags.


----------



## Starman3000m

2ndAmendment said:


> our greatest goodness is as, according to the Bible, *menstrual rags*.





Um.... Actually, here is where your paraphrase came from...


> But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as *filthy rags*; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isaiah 64:6)



But then again - I'm sure you knew that.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> I'm not being obtuse, I really don't like you calling me that.  And I'm certainly not baiting anyone!  Just inquisitive, I'm a thinker...can't help it.  And I can read the Bible on my own; I appreciate a few examples but I wish you could explain things without relying on the Bible so heavily.  It sounds like you don't fully understand it.  (not saying you don't, just saying it sounds like it)



If you notice I said, "I take it you are not being obtuse and your questions are legitimate rather than leading." That means I accept that you are what you purport to be; inquisitive.

I use scripture, not because I do not understand it nor because I cannot explain it. I use scripture because it is the authoritative source. I am not defending my thesis. I rely on the Bible because it is the word of God. It is God revealing to man what He wants us to know. The Bible is the history of mankind from beginning to end.

Not using the Bible to explain what God expects or other interactions is like trying study physics without reading about and knowing the laws of Newton. It is like trying to solve partial differentials without having any knowledge of basic math.

Without the Bible, understanding of anything of God is just guesswork. When you need answers about some technical device of which you know nothing, it is best to read the manual. The Bible is the manual of life.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> I don't have the faith of a child because I am an adult.
> 
> Science changes often because we learn new things all the time; if it didn't change with new discoveries it would be religion.



I also am an adult. I was also self sufficient and rejected the Bible while in college and for several years after. As I became more knowledgeable and gain wisdom, I realized that the Bible has much better explanations than science and they are constant.

Wisdom and knowledge are not the same. You, being a mathematician, are knowledgeable at least in math. Of course math is also changing and expanding. But knowledge and wisdom are often at odds with each other.

So science changes when man gets greater knowledge about something. The Bible remains the same. 

The reason you must have the faith of a child is that the things of the Spirit seem foolish to those that are not of the Spirit.

May it be that someday you will have the wisdom to have the faith of a child and your eyes will be opened to the wonders of God.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

Starman3000m said:


> Um.... Actually, here is where your paraphrase came from...
> 
> 
> But then again - I'm sure you knew that.



I have been led to understand that the more literal translation of the Hebrew-Aramaic is menstrual rags and that the translation filthy is a nicety. Not being a Hebrew-Aramaic scholar, I may be incorrect.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Yes, all humans have souls. Whether decended from "apes" or incest, neither one is very palatable. As I said, it's all speculatation.


In your mind it might be "speculation" but it's clear to me. God said Eve was the mother of ALL the living. I doubt that she is mother to the apes though...


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Good is NOT being a smarmy game-playing *asswipe* as your example above.


There you go about my butt again...


UNA said:


> I'm a mathematician, so actually I do question things like does 1+1 really equal 2


Does it get you anywhere? Like a dog chasing it's tail? 
Btw, what does "UNA" stand for? 


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> I have been able to find many instances where Bible stories have scientific/historical backing.  I love the shows about it; there is a really good one about the plagues!  But how can a deity impregnate a virgin?


We all know that Mary had a little lamb, so it must have worked. 
Since God is almighty, why would that seem difficult? He just spoke it and it happened...just like the creation of everything. 


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> How do you interpret: “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Luke 6:37 ...if not but that one shouldn't judge others?


The misunderstanding happens when we try to take one verse and let it stand alone. When read in "light of" other verses (in context), it's meaning comes out clearly:

We're not to judge someones salvation or lack of. We ARE to use our biblical knowledge to figure out what the person believes so we can determine if there is a need for us to tell them about salvation. This is not judging but "inspecting their fruit", so to speak (Fruit being their actions). That's why Jesus said: when we judge others, be careful to make a "right judgment". 

Sometimes I can't say if someone is a believer or not but I can listen to what they say here and, to some extent, know if they need salvation or not. 





			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Oh, so basically, one can't be 'condemned' if one does not know better.  That makes sense.  But what about Cain?


We're all born with a properly programmed conscience. People know better until they choose not to. Cain knew better. He was guilty. People will be judged by the amount of "light" they were given while on earth. No will stand before Jesus and say they didn't know. There is no excuse so don't believe that for a minute.(Romans 1:18-20). Radiant1 must have missed that verse...


UNA said:


> That's just it, I like evidence!
> Glad you missed the tornado though!


Glad I missed it too! God uses many ways to make people accountable for knowing Him. Romans 1v18-20 says the creation shows God's invisible qualities, eternal power and divine nature, so people will have NO excuses when they stand before Him.


----------



## Starman3000m

2ndAmendment said:


> I have been led to understand that the more literal translation of the Hebrew-Aramaic is menstrual rags and that the translation filthy is a nicety. Not being a Hebrew-Aramaic scholar, I may be incorrect.



 Again!  

You're absolutely right 2A! I had never heard of the "filthy rags" mentioned in Isaiah 64:6 be described that way before. I checked, and, "menstrual rags" is definitely how the Hebrew-Aramaic describes it.  Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> In your mind it might be "speculation" but it's clear to me. God said Eve was the mother of ALL the living. I doubt that she is mother to the apes though...



I already stated Adam and Eve were the first humans. The question was, who did Cain reproduce with? And the answer to that is speculation.


----------



## Radiant1

UNA said:


> That works, but evolution doesn't posit that we evolved from apes rather primates.  We evolved from a common ancestor.



Yes, "Mitochondrial Eve". Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Yes, the Summerland is very much like Purgatory.  The Summerland (or something akin) is very common in pagan as well as neo-pagan belief structures.  I've always liked the idea because it give people a chance to come to terms with life in a peaceful place, no distractions and ideally a manifestation of the Deity to guide their journey.  Sounds a lot nicer than Purgatory though.



Purgatory is a process or state of being, not a place per se.


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> Really?



Yes, because I know 1x1x1=1, I passed the third grade. I wasn't correcting that, I was positing that 1+1+1 would be more appropriate since it's Father, Son AND Holy Ghost. ...Nevermind






Starman3000m said:


> What would your world be like UNA?
> 
> What would you do with people who deliberately disobeyed your guidance and shunned the love you have for them and chose to side with someone else and turn against you?



If I never showed proof that I existed I'd have to understand. It's like me saying "why doesn't Joe Bob from California like me?" when we've never met.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> I hope you will, but it will be through accepting Jesus as Savior and Lord since you cannot claim ignorance. And as to the idea that most or everyone gets saved, that is contrary to what Jesus said. The way is narrow and few enter.
> 
> God is Holy. Humans cannot even comprehend Holy. Holy is not human. Holy is not us. Our greatest goodness does not measure up to Holy in any way; our greatest goodness is as, according to the Bible, menstrual rags.



Well then I guess, according to your beliefs, I'm going to hell. Good thing I don't believe that.


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> Um.... Actually, here is where your paraphrase came from...
> 
> 
> But then again - I'm sure you knew that.



Oh thank you! That is MUCH better than equating people to menstrual rags. Got to love how some people view the nature of women


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> If you notice I said, "I take it you are not being obtuse and your questions are legitimate rather than leading." That means I accept that you are what you purport to be; inquisitive.
> 
> I use scripture, not because I do not understand it nor because I cannot explain it. I use scripture because it is the authoritative source. I am not defending my thesis. I rely on the Bible because it is the word of God. It is God revealing to man what He wants us to know. The Bible is the history of mankind from beginning to end.
> 
> Not using the Bible to explain what God expects or other interactions is like trying study physics without reading about and knowing the laws of Newton. It is like trying to solve partial differentials without having any knowledge of basic math.
> 
> Without the Bible, understanding of anything of God is just guesswork. When you need answers about some technical device of which you know nothing, it is best to read the manual. The Bible is the manual of life.



Good point!

But that's another thing I've always wondered about; did god write the bible? Or did he dictate it? What if the scriber misinterpreted gods words? What if Martin Luther who first translated it into German and the basis for future translations; misinterpreted it? I'm sure there were MANY language barriers/false cognates.......


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> Yes, because I know 1x1x1=1, I passed the third grade. I wasn't correcting that, I was positing that 1+1+1 would be more appropriate since it's Father, Son AND Holy Ghost. ...Nevermind



OK, but with God we are still referring to One Entity who has three distinct attributes; (Same Entity)



> If I never showed proof that I existed I'd have to understand. It's like me saying "why doesn't Joe Bob from California like me?" when we've never met.



God has shown proof and made Himself know to mankind in many ways throughout history. From the time of Creation, through the first-century presence of Jesus dealing with the religious leaders, to the present activity of the Holy Spirit interacting in the lives of believers today.



> He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. *He came unto his own, and his own received him not.* But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (John 1:10-12)


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Yes, "Mitochondrial Eve". Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Do you believe in this? This is part of that "Eve":

"...earlier Eves can also be defined going beyond the species, for example one who is ancestral to both modern humanity and Neanderthals, or, further back, an "Eve" ancestral to all members of genus Homo and *chimpanzees* in genus Pan..."  


UNA said:


> But that's another thing I've always wondered about; did god write the bible? Or did he dictate it? What if the scriber misinterpreted gods words? What if Martin Luther who first translated it into German and the basis for future translations; misinterpreted it? I'm sure there were MANY language barriers/false cognates.......


What if they didn't? The Bible prove itself to be internally consistent and correct. Other "religious" books do not. If I was telling you what to write and you wrote it down word for word, it would be correct in as much as what I've said is correct. Although I'm not perfect, I can be totally correct in some areas. God is perfect, so what He tells them to write is perfectly correct.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Yes, because I know 1x1x1=1, I passed the third grade. I wasn't correcting that, I was positing that 1+1+1 would be more appropriate since it's Father, Son AND Holy Ghost. ...Nevermind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I never showed proof that I existed I'd have to understand. It's like me saying "why doesn't Joe Bob from California like me?" when we've never met.



The proof is all around you. You apparently choose not to believe it or cannot see it. Christians see the evidence of God all around them all the time.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Good point!
> 
> But that's another thing I've always wondered about; did god write the bible? Or did he dictate it? What if the scriber misinterpreted gods words? What if Martin Luther who first translated it into German and the basis for future translations; misinterpreted it? I'm sure there were MANY language barriers/false cognates.......



You, like many that do not believe, keep ignoring God is God. Since God spoke the universe into existence, it seems rather trivial to me that He could cause what He wants to reveal to us to be written accurately and preserved accurately.

Do you accept that the Iliad and the Odyssey are the works of Homer? How about the works of Plato and Aristotle? There are far more manuscripts of the books of the Bible that there are of any of those.

Take a look. The Bible Vs. Other Ancient Books


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Do you believe in this? This is part of that "Eve":
> 
> "...earlier Eves can also be defined going beyond the species, for example one who is ancestral to both modern humanity and Neanderthals, or, further back, an "Eve" ancestral to all members of genus Homo and *chimpanzees* in genus Pan..."



Here's the sentence before your quote. Emphasis mine.

_The mitochondrial clade which Mitochondrial Eve defines is the species *Homo sapiens sapiens* itself, or at least the current population or "chronospecies" as it exists today._

In other words, humans. This is the Eve that the bible speaks about in Genesis. This theory solidifies the Christian/Judaic/Islamic teaching that Eve is the mother of all the human race, which I espouse as do you. So what's your problem? Stop taking issue where there is none.


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> God has shown proof and made Himself know to mankind in many ways throughout history. From the time of Creation, through the first-century presence of Jesus dealing with the religious leaders, to the present activity of the Holy Spirit interacting in the lives of believers today.



Creation: no evidence it was 'god' the actually did the creating; and since there IS evidence for evolution...I do like the idea however, that God 'started' the Big Bang; and since there isn't any other explanation yet...  In addition, there is actually evidence AGAINST the Christian Creation story WRT how long ago it happened according to the Bible and the major time-periods it misses...like dinosaurs.  And there is never (as far as I know) any mention of it getting really, really cold 

Jesus: again; no evidence that Jesus was the son of God.  Many miracles can be explained with science.  This is not to say that God didn't just use his own rules to create 'miracles' but still nothing definitive here.

Present day activity: ? dunno, never seen it myself.

None of this is to say that you are wrong...just explaining why I don't personally believe because I believe what I see and I see evidence of evolution and so on...I don't see evidence that God did it.  HOWEVER, please remember that I am NOT an atheist!  I DO believe in a higher power, just not a Christian one.  Mainly just because I don't want to label my beliefs; labels stunt free thinking because you end up feeling stuck in the box of your labels...and cause wars (Crusades, WWII, Jihad.......).


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> I also am an adult. I was also self sufficient and rejected the Bible while in college and for several years after. As I became more knowledgeable and gain wisdom, I realized that the Bible has much better explanations than science and they are constant.
> 
> Wisdom and knowledge are not the same. You, being a mathematician, are knowledgeable at least in math. Of course math is also changing and expanding. But knowledge and wisdom are often at odds with each other.
> 
> So science changes when man gets greater knowledge about something. The Bible remains the same.
> 
> The reason you must have the faith of a child is that the things of the Spirit seem foolish to those that are not of the Spirit.
> 
> May it be that someday you will have the wisdom to have the faith of a child and your eyes will be opened to the wonders of God.



Please remember (maybe I haven't mentioned yet, I really don't remember  ) that I am not an atheist.  I am very spiritual, just not WRT Christianity.  As I have said before, I refrain from labeling myself with a specific religion.  I just believe in more of a 'hands-off' higher power.  I do disagree with Mr. Albert Einstein on at least one big thing: God does indeed 'play dice' with the universe...in my humble opinion anyways!


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Does it get you anywhere? Like a dog chasing it's tail?
> Btw, what does "UNA" stand for?



It get me very far actually.  Mathematics is a very fulfilling field, it's a wonderful feeling to 'figure something out', to prove something that no one else could, to understand the finite and the infinite.  It makes me very happy (I know, I'm a dork  ) and it's made me financially comfortable as well!  So yes...a little less like a dog chasing it's tail and more like self-actualization (not that I've attained that, but I'm heading in the right direction! ...I think  )

and UNA is short for Unaffiliated as in no political party affiliation...Dem / Rep...same crap, two different piles is you ask me (not trying to start a political discussion...just answering)



ItalianScallion said:


> The misunderstanding happens when we try to take one verse and let it stand alone. When read in "light of" other verses (in context), it's meaning comes out clearly:
> 
> We're not to judge someones salvation or lack of. We ARE to use our biblical knowledge to figure out what the person believes so we can determine if there is a need for us to tell them about salvation. This is not judging but "inspecting their fruit", so to speak (Fruit being their actions). That's why Jesus said: when we judge others, be careful to make a "right judgment".



Oh, well that changes things.  I'll have to stop quoting bits and start reading the "before and after" before I use the Bible to ask questions! 



ItalianScallion said:


> Sometimes I can't say if someone is a believer or not but I can listen to what they say here and, to some extent, know if they need salvation or not.
> We're all born with a properly programmed conscience. People know better until they choose not to. Cain knew better. He was guilty. People will be judged by the amount of "light" they were given while on earth. No will stand before Jesus and say they didn't know. There is no excuse so don't believe that for a minute.(Romans 1:18-20). Radiant1 must have missed that verse...



But I don't think Cain did understand.  No one had dies before; I don't think he knew that if he hit Abel, Abel wouldn't 'come back'.  Does a child understand death if they're never seen it? No, so how would you expect Cain to?  I've actually always felt bad for him.


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> Purgatory is a process or state of being, not a place per se.



Right, of course...but it's easier to talk about Purgatory and Summerland as if they are places.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Here's the sentence before your quote. Emphasis mine.  _The mitochondrial clade which Mitochondrial Eve defines is the species *Homo sapiens sapiens* itself, or at least the current population or "chronospecies" as it exists today._  In other words, humans. This is the Eve that the bible speaks about in Genesis. This theory solidifies the Christian/Judaic/Islamic teaching that Eve is the mother of all the human race, which I espouse as do you. So what's your problem? Stop taking issue where there is none.


My problem is using wiki as your source... It clearly says: "EARLIER 'EVES' WENT OUTSIDE THEIR SPECIES..." You say that's ok since you've quoted it? Ok then, I do have issues with that. Therein lies the problem with going outside of the Bible for spiritual truths, darling...


UNA said:


> Creation: no evidence it was 'god' the actually did the creating; and since there IS evidence for evolution...I do like the idea however, that God 'started' the Big Bang; and since there isn't any other explanation yet...  In addition, there is actually evidence AGAINST the Christian Creation story WRT how long ago it happened according to the Bible and the major time-periods it misses...like dinosaurs. Jesus: again; no evidence that Jesus was the son of God.  Many miracles can be explained with science.  This is not to say that God didn't just use his own rules to create 'miracles' but still nothing definitive here. None of this is to say that you are wrong...just explaining why I don't personally believe because I believe what I see and I see evidence of evolution and so on...I don't see evidence that God did it.  HOWEVER, please remember that I am NOT an atheist!  I DO believe in a higher power, just not a Christian one.


You have no faith my dear (I'm assuming you're a lady. Pardon me if you're not). Do you believe in George Washington even though you haven't seen him? Why? It's the same type of faith...

Dinosaurs didn't get missed. Read "Job". Genesis doesn't mention every animal by name but that doesn't mean they weren't all there.


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> It get me very far actually.  Mathematics is a very fulfilling field, it's a wonderful feeling to 'figure something out', to prove something that no one else could, to understand the finite and the infinite.  It makes me very happy (I know, I'm a dork  ) and it's made me financially comfortable as well!  So yes...a little less like a dog chasing it's tail and more like self-actualization (not that I've attained that, but I'm heading in the right direction! ...I think  )


I loved math in school. I was really good at it. I'm still good with numbers.
Are you an accountant or teacher or ??


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Oh, well that changes things.  I'll have to stop quoting bits and start reading the "before and after" before I use the Bible to ask questions!


Good move! Sometimes the "before & after" might be in other parts of the Bible so I hope you don't mind some extra reading...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> But I don't think Cain did understand.  No one had dies before; I don't think he knew that if he hit Abel, Abel wouldn't 'come back'.  Does a child understand death if they're never seen it? No, so how would you expect Cain to?  I've actually always felt bad for him.


Actually Cain fully understood because he wasn't a child when he murdered  Abel. As I said earlier, right & wrong are pre-programmed in our consciences from birth. We're the ones who choose to ignore it later in life. 

One reason why science cannot reconcile with the Bible is because science is limited but God isn't. Science cannot reconcile that Adam & Eve were created fully mature even though they were only ONE day old. The same with the stars & sunlight. God didn't create them, then say it would take zillions of years for their light to reach the earth. When He made them, their light was immediately visible. Science says: if they're 100 million light years away, they have to have been made that many years ago. Science can't come to grips with that. It doesn't work in their labs...


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> What if they didn't? The Bible prove itself to be internally consistent and correct. Other "religious" books do not. If I was telling you what to write and you wrote it down word for word, it would be correct in as much as what I've said is correct. Although I'm not perfect, I can be totally correct in some areas. God is perfect, so what He tells them to write is perfectly correct.



Yes, but Luther struggles with translation.  For example: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".  Camel; in Aramaic is gamlo.  But gamlo can also mean 'a thick rope' in Aramaic.  So which use of gamlo is correct?  This seems like a minor issue but a camel DOES NOT fit through the eye of a needle where as a thick rope is [at least] more plausible.  So, is it impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God? Or is it just hard?


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> You have no faith my dear (I'm assuming you're a lady. Pardon me if you're not). Do you believe in George Washington even though you haven't seen him? Why? It's the same type of faith...
> 
> Dinosaurs didn't get missed. Read "Job". Genesis doesn't mention every animal by name but that doesn't mean they weren't all there.



I have faith, just on Christian faith.  I believe in George Washington because there is physical evidence that he existed.  And I believe in Jesus too, we know he existed...just not [necessarily] that he was the son of God.

Do you know where in Job this is mentioned?  I've never heard of it and would like to read it!  Thanks!


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> I loved math in school. I was really good at it. I'm still good with numbers.
> Are you an accountant or teacher or ??



Ling story short...I went to school to teach math at the high school level.  The No Child Left Behind was adopted by Maryland and I could no longer afford to teach.  More details if you ask, but it may require a separate thread 



ItalianScallion said:


> Good move! Sometimes the "before & after" might be in other parts of the Bible so I hope you don't mind some extra reading...



More than happy to, would like the "reader's digest" version though 



ItalianScallion said:


> Actually Cain fully understood because he wasn't a child when he murdered  Abel. As I said earlier, right & wrong are pre-programmed in our consciences from birth. We're the ones who choose to ignore it later in life.



But he'd never seen death, no one had ever dies before.  We know the difference between alive and dead as adults (or even young children sadly) because we've experienced it.  I think the Bible even says he didn't understand initially.



ItalianScallion said:


> One reason why science cannot reconcile with the Bible is because science is limited but God isn't. Science cannot reconcile that Adam & Eve were created fully mature even though they were only ONE day old. The same with the stars & sunlight. God didn't create them, then say it would take zillions of years for their light to reach the earth. When He made them, their light was immediately visible. Science says: if they're 100 million light years away, they have to have been made that many years ago. Science can't come to grips with that. It doesn't work in their labs...



Science cannot reconcile what breaks the rules until science finds a new rule (black holes, for example, used to be considered an impossibility, but now we understand them - a little).  I guess the argument is that God broke his rules when he created everything.


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> Yes, but Luther struggles with translation.  For example: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".  Camel; in Aramaic is gamlo.  But gamlo can also mean 'a thick rope' in Aramaic.  So which use of gamlo is correct?  This seems like a minor issue but a camel DOES NOT fit through the eye of a needle where as a thick rope is [at least] more plausible.  So, is it impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God? Or is it just hard?


Doesn't matter. Either one gets the point across. Jesus is speaking about the man's attitude towards his material wealth. There's nothing wrong with being rich; it's our attitude towards our wealth that causes problems (Ya know; the love of money thing). Rich people can easily get into Heaven.


UNA said:


> I have faith, just *on* Christian faith.  I believe in George Washington because there is physical evidence that he existed.  And I believe in Jesus too, we know he existed...just not [necessarily] that he was the son of God.  Do you know where in Job this is mentioned?  I've never heard of it and would like to read it!  Thanks!


You're having trouble with your English or your typing I see. Bolded for you above & below.  

You should look at all the miracles He did and the prophesies and evidence that Jesus fulfilled by His coming to earth.

Job is the 18th book in the OT and speaks of very large animals in chapters 
(40 v 15-19) & (41 v 10). For extra credit reading, God speaks about a lot of what He made in chapters 38-41. It's the Reader's Digest version, just for you. Tee hee hee...


UNA said:


> *Ling* story short...I went to school to teach math at the high school level.
> ...But he'd never seen death, no one had ever *dies* before.  We know the difference between alive and dead as adults (or even young children sadly) because we've experienced it.  I think the Bible even says he didn't understand initially.


He still understood it because he understood that God's punishment was very harsh (Genesis 4 v 13).


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Science cannot reconcile what breaks the rules until science finds a new rule (black holes, for example, used to be considered an impossibility, but now we understand them - a little).  I guess the argument is that God broke his rules when he created everything.


The issue is that God doesn't follow man's or nature's rules but science has to.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Doesn't matter. Either one gets the point across. Jesus is speaking about the man's attitude towards his material wealth. There's nothing wrong with being rich; it's our attitude towards our wealth that causes problems (Ya know; the love of money thing). Rich people can easily get into Heaven.



Just seems like the camel would be impossible while rope/twine is plausible.



ItalianScallion said:


> You're having trouble with your English or your typing I see. Bolded for you above & below.



Why thank you very much (smart***  ...kidding) I was responding via my iPhone, auto-correct isn't perfect.  That's why I usually wait to respond until I'm on my home computer...slow day at work 



ItalianScallion said:


> He still understood it because he understood that God's punishment was very harsh (Genesis 4 v 13).



But I thought God, to spite Cain's actions, protected Cain saying that no one shall harm him.  Seems like God maybe understood Cain's ignorance of the consequences.



ItalianScallion said:


> The issue is that God doesn't follow man's or nature's rules but science has to.



If science didn't follow the rules it would be religion!


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> Why thank you very much (smart***  ...kidding) I was responding via my iPhone, auto-correct isn't perfect.  That's why I usually wait to respond until I'm on my home computer...slow day at work


We are the grammar police on this site. Ve are vatching you veeery closely my dear...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> But I thought God, to spite Cain's actions, protected Cain saying that no one shall harm him.  Seems like God maybe understood Cain's ignorance of the consequences.


Cain's punishment was to wander the earth like a nomad (and no one could kill him; which was more punishment) and then TRY to grow something to eat from it (v 12). The problem was that Cain.....................
wasn't Able...  Sorry UNA; I had to do it.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> My problem is using wiki as your source... It clearly says: "EARLIER 'EVES' WENT OUTSIDE THEIR SPECIES..." You say that's ok since you've quoted it? Ok then, I do have issues with that. Therein lies the problem with going outside of the Bible for spiritual truths, darling...



No, you just have a problem with evolution. Regardless of what you or I think about it, the spiritual truth remains the same -- Adam and Eve are our (humans) first parents. And yet you still protest simply because it's I who am saying it. 

And, Heaven forbid that we use an unbiblical source to solidify the truth found in the bible. Most assuredly every rational person appreciates the illogic of proving the bible with the bible. 

Stop taking issue where there is none.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> No, you just have a problem with evolution. Regardless of what you or I think about it, the spiritual truth remains the same -- Adam and Eve are our (humans) first parents. And yet you still protest simply because it's I who am saying it.
> 
> And, Heaven forbid that we use an unbiblical source to solidify the truth found in the bible. Most assuredly every rational person appreciates the illogic of proving the bible with the bible.
> 
> Stop taking issue where there is none.



Aren't evolutionists trying to prove a theory by what has been written to arrive at that theory?

At least, with the Holy Bible, and one's relationship with God there is evidence of a spiritual realm that exists and is present.

With evolution, there are only "best guesses" by man's ongoing attempts to prove something that is unproveable as is evolution.

Yes, I know that the RCC has now folded to "man's wisdom" and stated that evolution is a possible truth. Easy to see why you believe it also.  

*Conclusion:*Creationists have found their answer by turning their eyes toward Heaven while evolutionists are still searching for their answer by digging holes in the ground.



> *The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.* (Psalm 19:1)



P.S. The God I believe in is quite capable of having formed His Creation as mentioned in the Book of Genesis. tyvm


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Cain's punishment was to wander the earth like a nomad (and no one could kill him; which was more punishment) and then TRY to grow something to eat from it (v 12). The problem was that Cain.....................
> wasn't Able...  Sorry UNA; I had to do it.



Hahaha, nothing like a good ole 'knee slapper' :

well it sounds to me that God did the human race a favor by making Cain develop agriculture!


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> No, you just have a problem with evolution. Regardless of what you or I think about it, the spiritual truth remains the same -- Adam and Eve are our (humans) first parents. And yet you still protest simply because it's I who am saying it.
> 
> And, Heaven forbid that we use an unbiblical source to solidify the truth found in the bible. Most assuredly every rational person appreciates the illogic of proving the bible with the bible.
> 
> Stop taking issue where there is none.



I have to agree; you can't ignore other sources (though Wiki is a tough one to defend...Wiki i GREAT for initial research; top level facts - the bottom of an article will [should] list sources that are more reliable) just because they aren't religious.  Many Christians will say that you cannot prove everything with science...well you can't prove everything with religion either.  There is nothing wrong with having faith but it is just that; faith.  You can't prove facts with faith, it doesn't work that way.  Faith (of ALL kinds) is personal, not factual.


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> Aren't evolutionists trying to prove a theory by what has been written to arrive at that theory?
> 
> With evolution, there are only "best guesses" by man's ongoing attempts to prove something that is unproveable as is evolution.



You obviously don't understand the different between a "theory" and a "best guess".  A theory is (according to the AAS) "a scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence"  The only thing better is a law; the only difference is that a law can be stated mathematically.  If Evolutionary Biology was indeed 'wrong' the peer reviews would have debunked it by now.  The only [often] deemed more prestigious than proving a scientific theory is debunking one.  



Starman3000m said:


> Yes, I know that the RCC has now folded to "man's wisdom" and stated that evolution is a possible truth. Easy to see why you believe it also.



The RCC is apparently able to change it's ideas in light of new evidence; a very respectable ability.  It's funny because (having grown up Episcopal) I'd always been told that the RCC were the "crazy Christians" and the Protestants were the "normal" ones.  Turns out they were wrong about a lot of things!  Now that I think of it, a Catholic has NEVER judged me and said I was going to Hell; Protestants have.......



Starman3000m said:


> *Conclusion:*Creationists have found their answer by turning their eyes toward Heaven while evolutionists are still searching for their answer by digging holes in the ground.



Dust to dust...sounds like the Bible TOLD you to look for answers in the ground 

(BTW, I'm kidding, I know that's not what that means...)


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> P.S. The God I believe in is quite capable of having formed His Creation as mentioned in the Book of Genesis. tyvm



You apparently read Genesis literally. Even so, I agree with your statement quoted above. He most certainly is, and He is also capable of doing it however He so desired, because, ya know, He's God.

I'm thinking this is yet another problem with Protestant Sola Scriptura. The Word of God becomes stagnant instead of living. Protestants think in terms of either/or, not both/and.



UNA said:


> The RCC is apparently able to change it's ideas in light of new evidence; a very respectable ability.



Our doctrines don't change, but rather we come to a fuller understanding of what we already believe.


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> You obviously don't understand the different between a "theory" and a "best guess".  A theory is (according to the AAS) "a scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence"  The only thing better is a law; the only difference is that a law can be stated mathematically.  If Evolutionary Biology was indeed 'wrong' the peer reviews would have debunked it by now.  The only [often] deemed more prestigious than proving a scientific theory is debunking one.



Lucy, the Australopithecus skeleton that was found in Ethiopia, is estimated to be around 3.2 million years old.  I imagine the best carbon dating devices were used to determine this date.  Certainly, this dating method is "a scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence".  Can you prove, without a shadow of a doubt, Lucy is 3.2 million years old?


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> I'm thinking this is yet another problem with Protestant Sola Scriptura. The Word of God becomes stagnant instead of living. Protestants think in terms of either/or, not both/and.



"BOTH" and "AND" are the keys here.  It sounds silly, but acceptance of those words WRT religion could go far in out culture's growth.



Radiant1 said:


> Our doctrines don't change, but rather we come to a fuller understanding of what we already believe.



I didn't mean to imply that doctrine changes, I know it doesn't.  But rather a fuller and more open minded understanding of our world and humanity in general.


----------



## Radiant1

UNA said:


> "BOTH" and "AND" are the keys here.  It sounds silly, but acceptance of those words WRT religion could go far in out culture's growth.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mean to imply that doctrine changes, I know it doesn't.  But rather a fuller and more open minded understanding of our world and humanity in general.


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> Lucy, the Australopithecus skeleton that was found in Ethiopia, is estimated to be around 3.2 million years old.  I imagine the best carbon dating devices were used to determine this date.  Certainly, this dating method is "a scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence".  Can you prove, without a shadow of a doubt, Lucy is 3.2 million years old?



Radiocarbon dating measure the rate at which carbon decays.  The number of decays over a certain amount of time is proportional to the number of radioactive atoms.  Differential mathematics is used to approximate the age to within a few hundred years (I think).  I do not have a full understanding of exactly how this method works so I cannot "prove, without a shadow of a doubt" but I can read the research and peer reviews, concluding that this method is sound.

Lucy (AL 288-1) is a collection of bones from a Australopithecus afarensis.  The bones are estimated to be 3.2 million years old.  Ardi (ARA-VP-6/500) is a Ardipithecus ramidus approximated to be 4.4 million years old though is not general accepted as an 'ancestor' on modern human.

If you want to read the research, Wikipedia is a REALLY good starting point.  Make use of the Further Reading, External Links and References.

The problem with these sorts of discussions is that you know I am not an archeologist and can therefor NOT make the best points here.  But "because God did it" and "because the Bible says so" are not the best points either.  The Bible is not proof of anything.  The Bible is not peer reviewed.  We don't even actually know who wrote it.  We know there are a lot of things in real life that back up historical data in the Bible but that's about it.  The Bible should not be taken literally i.e. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12) probably isn't very relevant now-a-days.  Or at least I HOPE no one in here that still believes that crap!


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> Radiocarbon dating measure the rate at which carbon decays.  The number of decays over a certain amount of time is proportional to the number of radioactive atoms.  Differential mathematics is used to approximate the age to within a few hundred years (I think).  I do not have a full understanding of exactly how this method works so I cannot "prove, without a shadow of a doubt" but I can read the research and peer reviews, concluding that this method is sound.
> 
> Lucy (AL 288-1) is a collection of bones from a Australopithecus afarensis.  The bones are estimated to be 3.2 million years old.  Ardi (ARA-VP-6/500) is a Ardipithecus ramidus approximated to be 4.4 million years old though is not general accepted as an 'ancestor' on modern human.
> 
> If you want to read the research, Wikipedia is a REALLY good starting point.  Make use of the Further Reading, External Links and References.
> 
> The problem with these sorts of discussions is that you know I am not an archeologist and can therefor NOT make the best points here.  But "because God did it" and "because the Bible says so" are not the best points either.  The Bible is not proof of anything.  The Bible is not peer reviewed.  We don't even actually know who wrote it.  We know there are a lot of things in real life that back up historical data in the Bible but that's about it.  The Bible should not be taken literally i.e. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12) probably isn't very relevant now-a-days.  Or at least I HOPE no one in here that still believes that crap!



I appreciate the education.    I’ve done my share of education on both Lucy and carbon dating.  I don’t know you from Adam (pun intended).  I have no idea of your educational background.  So I am not trying to trip you up.

But by your own admission you can’t prove it.  It boils down to faith.  You have enough evidence to convince you, yet you can’t prove it beyond a shadow of doubt.  That is called faith.

Whether you believe the bible is peer review is not the issue.  Peer review is overrated.  Global warming has peer reviews and many are convinced we are in global warming.  Others don’t.  Peer review is not an end-all of proof.  It simply means a group of people studied it and agree on the ‘theory’.

There are plenty of extra-biblical writings that support biblical facts.  There is plenty of archeological data that supports biblical facts.  And you have a faith that has stood thousands of years of believers that can’t be dismissed as proof.  Belief in God isn’t simplified down to just “because God said so”.  There are a lot of highly intelligent people that have studied this and concluded there is a God, and that God is Yahweh.  To marginalize the billions of believers, the very intelligent humans over the millennia, that their faith is nothing more than “because God said so” gives no credence to the valid work that has been done studying the existence of God.


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> But by your own admission you can’t prove it.  It boils down to faith.  You have enough evidence to convince you, yet you can’t prove it beyond a shadow of doubt.  That is called faith.



This is exactly what I said you would say.  This is the argument tactic people like you use.  You know I don't know absolutely everything and that I will at some point either not know an answer or answer wrong.  Then you jump all other that shouting "SEE, SEE YOU DON'T KNOW!!!  I'M RIGHT!!!  THIS PROVES GOD IS RIGHT!!!" ...or something like that.  There is no point in me even trying to argue my point because no matter what I say, you think I'm just some faith-less intellectual.  Read the rest of my posts, I believe in god, just not the Christian God.  I don't believe that God did everything, I believe he mad everything possible.  I believe in the power of man to learn about his world and to figure it out.

There exists 'proof' of things like carbon dating but since I didn't do the testing, I can't prove it to your standards.  I know that elements have a half life and that we look at whats left and calculate backwards to determine an age.  It's really very simple.  We use carbon because it's everywhere and decays at an extremely constant rate (in fact, the only way to get it to stop decaying at this rate is to take it to absolute zero which is impossible)



PsyOps said:


> Whether you believe the bible is peer review is not the issue.  Peer review is overrated.  Global warming has peer reviews and many are convinced we are in global warming.  Others don’t.  Peer review is not an end-all of proof.  It simply means a group of people studied it and agree on the ‘theory’.



Uh, Global Warning is indisputable, it was colder, now it's warmer.  The questions are a) is it our fault, b) can we stop it and c) should we even try.



PsyOps said:


> There are plenty of extra-biblical writings that support biblical facts.  There is plenty of archeological data that supports biblical facts.  And you have a faith that has stood thousands of years of believers that can’t be dismissed as proof.  Belief in God isn’t simplified down to just “because God said so”.  There are a lot of highly intelligent people that have studied this and concluded there is a God, and that God is Yahweh.  To marginalize the billions of believers, the very intelligent humans over the millennia, that their faith is nothing more than “because God said so” gives no credence to the valid work that has been done studying the existence of God.



So, you only like the science that proves the Bible?  What about all the scientific evidence that shows inaccuracies within the Bible; there isn't even enough water in the whole world to cover the globe completely, and the Roman's never issues a census requiring all Roman subjects to return to their place of birth.  I could go on...

I never disputed the facts that are in the Bible i.e. Jesus was a real person.  I just don't believe that God impregnated a virgin, or that Jesus raised the dead.  I don't believe that God created everything with a wave of his finger nor that Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days.  I don't believe in the miracles because there is no REAL evidence to be found. Christianity isn't law or even a theory, it's a religion.  No one can prove it's real NOR can anyone prove it isn't.  All I'm saying is that people shouldn't ignore the facts that science presents and instead place their faith in a 2,000+ year old book that no one knows who wrote or even whether it's been translated properly.


----------



## Radiant1

UNA said:


> I don't believe in the miracles because there is no REAL evidence to be found.



I'm sure you've watched a lot of Discovery and the History Channel and have seen some of the theories or hypotheses put forth by scholars of various types regarding the miracles in the bible and how they occurred? The parting of the Red Sea, manna in the desert, etc and so forth? If so, what did you think of them?


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> I'm sure you've watched a lot of Discovery and the History Channel and have seen some of the theories or hypotheses put forth by scholars of various types regarding the miracles in the bible and how they occurred? The parting of the Red Sea, manna in the desert, etc and so forth? If so, what did you think of them?



The evidence usually put forth in these shows is scientific evidence.  More like "something strange happened" (the parting of the Red Sea) and science explains how it happened.  But Christians of the time didn't understand what was really going on so they (like most ancient people) attributed it to a higher power.  Moses and Jesus were in the right place at the right time.  All that said, none of this implies that Moses nor Jesus weren't exceptionally good if not GREAT men.  The teachings of Jesus are good words to live by no matter what you believe.  He was a pretty cool and groovy dude!


----------



## Radiant1

UNA said:


> Moses and Jesus were in the right place at the right time.



Really though, what are the odds of that?

I tend to think that God (an Intelligent Cause if you will) set forth in motion the [natural]events at exactly the time/place that was needed, a synchronicity; thus, the miracle. So, BOTH the bible AND scientific scholars are correct. The bible says it happened (with perhaps limited understanding at the time), and science (perhaps) tells us how.


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> Really though, what are the odds of that?
> 
> I tend to think that God (an Intelligent Cause if you will) set forth in motion the [natural]events at exactly the time/place that was needed, a synchronicity; thus, the miracle. So, BOTH the bible AND scientific scholars are correct. The bible says it happened (with perhaps limited understanding at the time), and science (perhaps) tells us how.



That makes sense...why wouldn't God work within the laws of nature he set forth?


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Please remember (maybe I haven't mentioned yet, I really don't remember  ) that I am not an atheist.  I am very spiritual, just not WRT Christianity.  As I have said before, I refrain from labeling myself with a specific religion.  I just believe in more of a 'hands-off' higher power.  I do disagree with Mr. Albert Einstein on at least one big thing: God does indeed 'play dice' with the universe...in my humble opinion anyways!



Being "spiritual" and being "of the Spirit" are two entirely different things.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> I have faith, just on Christian faith.  I believe in George Washington because there is physical evidence that he existed.  And I believe in Jesus too, we know he existed...just not [necessarily] that he was the son of God.
> 
> Do you know where in Job this is mentioned?  I've never heard of it and would like to read it!  Thanks!



Do you think that the testimony of others is a valid way to understanding? Rhetorical, of course you do or you would have to derive all the relationships and processes of math and science yourself.

We have the testimony of the contemporaries of Jesus that He rose from the dead and that He performed many miracles and was taken up into heaven. Most of these contemporaries were threatened with their live, many were killed, crucified, John was boiled in oil and survived. All they had to do was deny that they saw the miracles and that Jesus is the Son of God. They chose to be tortured and put to death rather than deny Jesus.

If someone held a gun to your head and said if you do not deny that 1+1=2, then I am going to kill you. Would you deny it or would you let yourself be killed?

Those that followed Jesus in early Christendom must have been extremely confident in the fact that Jesus is God.


----------



## hvp05

2ndAmendment said:


> All they had to do was deny that they saw the miracles and that Jesus is the Son of God. They chose to be tortured and put to death rather than deny Jesus.


Since my *speaking* the words, "I love Jesus and want him to be my savior," are no good without the meaning being in my heart, why would *speaking* the words, "I deny Jesus because he was a normal man and not God," send someone to hell if, in fact, they did still believe in him?  :shrug:


----------



## Radiant1

hvp05 said:


> Since my *speaking* the words, "I love Jesus and want him to be my savior," are no good without the meaning being in my heart, why would *speaking* the words, "I deny Jesus because he was a normal man and not God," send someone to hell if, in fact, they did still believe in him?  :shrug:



Peter denied Jesus three times and was forgiven, so their motivation couldn't have been a fear of hell. They believed with all of their mind, heart and soul. They gave their life for truth.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Do you think that the testimony of others is a valid way to understanding? Rhetorical, of course you do or you would have to derive all the relationships and processes of math and science yourself.
> 
> We have the testimony of the contemporaries of Jesus that He rose from the dead and that He performed many miracles and was taken up into heaven. Most of these contemporaries were threatened with their live, many were killed, crucified, John was boiled in oil and survived. All they had to do was deny that they saw the miracles and that Jesus is the Son of God. They chose to be tortured and put to death rather than deny Jesus.
> 
> If someone held a gun to your head and said if you do not deny that 1+1=2, then I am going to kill you. Would you deny it or would you let yourself be killed?
> 
> Those that followed Jesus in early Christendom must have been extremely confident in the fact that Jesus is God.



I know the testimony of others is a valid way of understanding because they present their facts, they describe or recreate their experiments and can show the conclusions.  I don't need to derive everything myself; but I can and that's why science isn't based on faith but facts.

There are also testimonials of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree but he didn't, propaganda is everywhere.  One needs to look at more than one source WRT historical accounts.

Did Jesus' contemporaries have an understanding of what it meant for someone to actually be dead?  Did they check his pulse?  I've always figured he wasn't really dead; people were buried alive quite often before we gained an understanding of biology.

And yes, to save my life I would deny that 1+1=2 because saying it doesn't make 1+1=/=2


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> I know the testimony of others is a valid way of understanding because they present their facts, they describe or recreate their experiments and can show the conclusions.  I don't need to derive everything myself; but I can and that's why science isn't based on faith but facts.
> 
> There are also testimonials of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree but he didn't, propaganda is everywhere.  One needs to look at more than one source WRT historical accounts.


That is a myth and I learned it was a myth in elementary school. Try again.



UNA said:


> Did Jesus' contemporaries have an understanding of what it meant for someone to actually be dead?  Did they check his pulse?  I've always figured he wasn't really dead; people were buried alive quite often before we gained an understanding of biology.
> 
> And yes, to save my life I would deny that 1+1=2 because saying it doesn't make 1+1=/=2



Duh. Let see. He was beaten with a Roman lash. He was nailed to a cross. He had a spear stuck in His side. The Roman soldiers said He was dead. The Jewish leaders said He was dead. His mother said He was dead.

Now let's see, who was it that is considered the father of modern medicine? Hmmm? Oh yeah, Hippocrates of Cos, ca. 460 BC – ca. 370 BC. Yep, I think they pretty much knew dead from alive.

OK. I now recognize that your object IS to debate and not actual inquisitiveness. Enjoy your stay. I will leave it to others to play your game. I have better things to do. Shaking the dust off.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> No, you just have a problem with evolution. Regardless of what you or I think about it, the spiritual truth remains the same -- Adam and Eve are our (humans) first parents. And yet you still protest simply because it's I who am saying it.


You're getting paranoid little lady. I agree with a lot of things you say. 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> And, Heaven forbid that we use an unbiblical source to solidify the truth found in the bible. Most assuredly every rational person appreciates the illogic of proving the bible with the bible.


No, initially, I didn't use the Bible to prove itself true. There are enough events and testimonies that do that. I've done lots of research that has convinced me that the Bible is from God. Therefore, whatever it says, I can completely believe it no matter how ridiculous it may sound in places. And now, if it says it is God's Word, I can fully trust it to be. 

If you remember this from Matthew 4V4, Jesus said: "...man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God". 
Have we heard every word from God's mouth? No. 
And would Jesus tell us to live by words we can't find or hear? No. 
So where do we find or hear those words? (This is too easy folks). It rhymes with libel.
And why is it called "God's Word"?  


Radiant1 said:


> I'm thinking this is yet another problem with Protestant Sola Scriptura. The Word of God becomes stagnant instead of living. Protestants think in terms of either/or, not both/and.


Lady you need to do some serious re-thinking on that issue.They've brainwashed you into believing their doctrines over God's; Their goal exactly.

How can anyone make the Bible stagnant when God said it's "living & active"? For you to take any man's word over Jesus' Word, should be a red flag and really bother your spirit. I don't care what human being (alive or dead) told me something. If it's different than what God's Word said; I'd always test their statements against the Bible (just like God tells us to). Sola Scriptura eliminates any "outside person's" opinion. 


UNA said:


> ...But "because God did it" and "because the Bible says so" are not the best points either.  The Bible is not proof of anything.  The Bible is not peer reviewed.  We don't even actually know who wrote it.  We know there are a lot of things in real life that back up historical data in the Bible but that's about it.  The Bible should not be taken literally i.e. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12) probably isn't very relevant now-a-days.  Or at least I HOPE no one in here that still believes that crap!


UNA the issue here isn't the Bible, it's your understanding of it. You've, apparently, arrived at a wrong meaning for the verse you've quoted. Paul was giving the women in Ephesus a command not to speak in church because there were problems with them yacking during the "service". The restrictions of leadership in there are from God and do not change, however.

There are times to take it literally and times not to. Only a child of God (true Christian) is given the knowledge of when to do that. 

We do know who wrote it...


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> That is a myth and I learned it was a myth in elementary school. Try again.



What part of what I said are you referring to as myth?  I assume you mean the part about George Washington.  I know that's a myth, that's what I had said, that was my point.  Just because YOU learned it was a myth at a young age doesn't mean that it wasn't considered to be true at one point.  Fine, another example, most people still think Columbus discovered America...





2ndAmendment said:


> Duh. Let see. He was beaten with a Roman lash. He was nailed to a cross. He had a spear stuck in His side. The Roman soldiers said He was dead. The Jewish leaders said He was dead. His mother said He was dead.
> 
> Now let's see, who was it that is considered the father of modern medicine? Hmmm? Oh yeah, Hippocrates of Cos, ca. 460 BC – ca. 370 BC. Yep, I think they pretty much knew dead from alive.



People were - and still are - buried alive, it just happened a few years ago in DC!  So it happens and it certainly could have happened then.  You are right, he was beaten, crucified and stabbed...maybe this is a bad example.  What about Lazarus?



2ndAmendment said:


> OK. I now recognize that your object IS to debate and not actual inquisitiveness. Enjoy your stay. I will leave it to others to play your game. I have better things to do. Shaking the dust off.



No, because others have made good valid points; not just the same Sunday School stuff.  Other people in here have engaged in the discussion and actually influenced and changed my outlook!  I've had a wonderful opportunity to hear (read) other's point of views and it's greatly appreciated AND respected.  I've learned a lot in here, it is my hope that I've made other people think about things because I know I like thinking about things like this!  I'm not asking anyone to make me a believer because I'm not and I don't see myself changing by whole faith, I'm asking people for input.  I grew up hearing the same things your saying and I can make your arguments as well as you can.  No one is forcing you to participate in the mature religious conversation.  I'm sorry if I've offended you (or just made a good point that you cannot argue...) but please do not pass judgement on me, I'm not judging you nor anyone else in here.  I've learned that not all Christians are judgmental, closed minded Bible Thumpers and I hope others in here have learned that not all non-Christians are immature, atheist religion-bashers.  I know you will not take anything I've said here to heart, to you it's all or nothing.  I AM an immature, atheist religion-basher to you and I will never be able to open your heart to people who believe differently than you.  As a member of the church of "You Do Your Thing; I'll Do Mine": I hope you have a wonderful, fulfilling life.  Blessed Be.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Lady you need to do some serious re-thinking on that issue.They've brainwashed you into believing their doctrines over God's; Their goal exactly.



Yup, I was raised to believe that the RCC was evil and brainwashed it's followers.  Was there a time before Luther when they maybe did get a little power hungry?  Yes.  But from what Ive learned in here, it doesn't sound like that at all anymore!



ItalianScallion said:


> How can anyone make the Bible stagnant when God said it's "living & active"?



I don't think the problem here is the Bible, I think the problem here is that some Christians (not necessarily you nor -most - anyone else here) allow the Bible to become stagnant.  The Bible IS living and active as long as one allows it to be. In every group, there are people that are extreme and (sadly) they're usually really loud!  It seems to me that you allow the Bible to live, otherwise you would have shut me (and others) off by now.  so thanks!



ItalianScallion said:


> UNA the issue here isn't the Bible, it's your understanding of it. You've, apparently, arrived at a wrong meaning for the verse you've quoted. Paul was giving the women in Ephesus a command not to speak in church because there were problems with them yacking during the "service". The restrictions of leadership in there are from God and do not change, however.



Maybe I have, I forgot to read the before and after again  but "The restrictions of leadership in there are from God and do not change, however"?  What do you mean?



ItalianScallion said:


> There are times to take it literally and times not to. Only a child of God (true Christian) is given the knowledge of when to do that.



Well that's what people like me have people like you for!   Just because I'm not a true believer doesn't mean I don't want to know about it 



ItalianScallion said:


> We do know who wrote it...



And this is why it's tough to discuss faith and science, but it's a good test for faith AND science and worth the trouble! (in my humble opinion anyway)

In light of a post directed to me from another participant, once again, I hope you do not take my questions/points as an insult nor a direct challenge of faith.  It's hard to get emotion through a forum and sometimes it's easy to sound condescending when you aren't...especially when there are two completely different mind-sets in here, easy to let emotions flow into responses to other people.


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> I don't think the problem here is the Bible, I think the problem here is that some Christians (not necessarily you nor -most - anyone else here) allow the Bible to become stagnant.  The Bible IS living and active as long as one allows it to be. In every group, there are people that are extreme and (sadly) they're usually really loud!  It seems to me that you allow the Bible to live, otherwise you would have shut me (and others) off by now.  so thanks!


I fully agree with you on this. I normally won't "shut anyone off"; at least for a long while until we start repeating our posts. As long as it doesn't get personal but (I'm usually the one who gets called names first). I tell ya, "I don't get no respect! No respect at all"... :shrug: 


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Maybe I have, I forgot to read the before and after again  but "The restrictions of leadership in there are from God and do not change, however"?  What do you mean?


What really helps me to better understand the Bible is a "Study Bible". It has notes on every page that really explain what many of the verses mean. If you're really serious about getting more understanding, I'd recommend using the New International Version because of it's more modern wording. I've bought hard cover versions at WalMart for lots of people for only $20. You can use other versions if you'd like but I find that one to be of the easiest to understand (as far as we can understand it).

To answer your question, God gave men & women different "roles" in life. He made women & men different for many reasons. There are some things that God wants ONLY men to do and some things He wants ONLY women to do. Everything else they can both do. One of those "men only" things is church leadership. He wants only the men to head up the churches. It doesn't mean that women are inferior because of that. They do have other roles in the church. Believe me, in some areas of the church, women do a better job than men...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Well that's what people like me have people like you for!   Just because I'm not a true believer doesn't mean I don't want to know about it


 


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> In light of a post directed to me from another participant, once again, I hope you do not take my questions/points as an insult nor a direct challenge of faith.  It's hard to get emotion through a forum and sometimes it's easy to sound condescending when you aren't...especially when there are two completely different mind-sets in here, easy to let emotions flow into responses to other people.


That's why the "Smilies" are soo important here but, again, so far you've come across as a wonderful person. I'm assuming by your avatar that you're a woman? Where is that "girly ghost" from? I've seen it somewhere but I can't remember where.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> What really helps me to better understand the Bible is a "Study Bible". It has notes on every page that really explain what many of the verses mean. If you're really serious about getting more understanding, I'd recommend using the New International Version because of it's more modern wording. I've bought hard cover versions at WalMart for lots of people for only $20. You can use other versions if you'd like but I find that one to be of the easiest to understand (as far as we can understand it).



I just might have to think about that, but I feel like I should get a Koran too, to be fair 



ItalianScallion said:


> To answer your question, God gave men & women different "roles" in life. He made women & men different for many reasons. There are some things that God wants ONLY men to do and some things He wants ONLY women to do. Everything else they can both do. One of those "men only" things is church leadership. He wants only the men to head up the churches. It doesn't mean that women are inferior because of that. They do have other roles in the church. Believe me, in some areas of the church, women do a better job than men...



So just different roles in the church...and WRT children I assume.  OK, I can live with that, as long as I can own land, teach school, stay at home with kids, vote, drive, have an opinion, make the same amount of money for the same job............................ 



ItalianScallion said:


> That's why the "Smilies" are soo important here but, again, so far you've come across as a wonderful person. I'm assuming by your avatar that you're a woman? Where is that "girly ghost" from? I've seen it somewhere but I can't remember where.



Well thank you!  You seem like a wonderful person as well 

Yes, I am a woman.  My avatar isn't a "girly ghost" though  I guess it DOES look like that though!  I picked it because it's a little obscure, it's from Cowboy Bebop, a very important anime series from the late 90's.  Cowboy Bebop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> This is exactly what I said you would say.  This is the argument tactic people like you use.  You know I don't know absolutely everything and that I will at some point either not know an answer or answer wrong.  Then you jump all other that shouting "SEE, SEE YOU DON'T KNOW!!!  I'M RIGHT!!!  THIS PROVES GOD IS RIGHT!!!" ...or something like that.  There is no point in me even trying to argue my point because no matter what I say, you think I'm just some faith-less intellectual.  Read the rest of my posts, I believe in god, just not the Christian God.  I don't believe that God did everything, I believe he mad everything possible.  I believe in the power of man to learn about his world and to figure it out.
> 
> There exists 'proof' of things like carbon dating but since I didn't do the testing, I can't prove it to your standards.  I know that elements have a half life and that we look at whats left and calculate backwards to determine an age.  It's really very simple.  We use carbon because it's everywhere and decays at an extremely constant rate (in fact, the only way to get it to stop decaying at this rate is to take it to absolute zero which is impossible)
> 
> Uh, Global Warning is indisputable, it was colder, now it's warmer.  The questions are a) is it our fault, b) can we stop it and c) should we even try.
> 
> So, you only like the science that proves the Bible?  What about all the scientific evidence that shows inaccuracies within the Bible; there isn't even enough water in the whole world to cover the globe completely, and the Roman's never issues a census requiring all Roman subjects to return to their place of birth.  I could go on...



Self-fulfilling prophesies are convenient aren’t they?  “People like me” know how to expose the flawed arguments people like you try to use ad nauseum.

I have maintained, and probably always will, that I can’t prove the validity of my God any more than you can prove your god and certain aspects of science have it right.  My ‘Lucy’ example wasn’t an attempt prove you wrong, it was an attempt to make that point: we rely on certain levels of facts and faith to BELIEVE what we believe.  Atheists in this forum spend a lot of time trying to show that science disproves the existence of God; mostly the on the creation/evolution premise.  

Let me qualify myself… I don’t doubt Lucy is 32 million years old.  I don’t doubt there are black holes.  I don’t doubt evolution is a fact.  I don’t doubt there is life somewhere else in the universe.  But if you’re going to force me to prove – with absolute certainty – that my God exists, then I have to throw back at you: prove – with absolute certainty – that there was a big bang that gave birth this universe.  And you admit you can’t; and I admit I can’t.  Well, if you had given me a chance – without all the  - you would understand that I’m not trying to prove you wrong; I’m only using the same logic that you’re using against me.

There is no absolute proof that global warming is happening.  If there were EVERYONE would believe it as fact.  There is no absolute proof that carbon dating is accurate; otherwise Biblical-literal Christians would be admitting how old our universe really is.  There is no absolute proof evolution happened the way Darwin claims; no one was there as a witness.  There is no absolute proof that God exists, otherwise everyone would believe.

I’m not a biblical-literalist.  I believe God created this universe and set certain things in nature in motion.  I believe science fills in a lot of the gaps that the bible doesn’t provide.  I believe the bible fills a lot of the gaps science doesn’t explain.  I feel together, through these debates, we can get answers we’re looking for.  I am satisfied with the answers I have learned so far.  I have chosen to believe carbon dating is fairly accurate, even though no one was actually there to document when Lucy died.  I have chosen to believe there are black holes, even though no one can actually go to one and prove, first-hand,that they truly exist.  I believe my God exists, even though I’ve seen His face or Heard his voice in the physical sense.  I know this God through the bible I read – witnessed accounts, billions of believers and archeological data.  But faith ends being the determining factor for all these things.


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> I never disputed the facts that are in the Bible i.e. Jesus was a real person.  I just don't believe that God impregnated a virgin, or that Jesus raised the dead.  I don't believe that God created everything with a wave of his finger nor that Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days.  I don't believe in the miracles because there is no REAL evidence to be found. Christianity isn't law or even a theory, it's a religion.  No one can prove it's real NOR can anyone prove it isn't.  All I'm saying is that people shouldn't ignore the facts that science presents and instead place their faith in a 2,000+ year old book that no one knows who wrote or even whether it's been translated properly.



But you are disputing the facts of the bible.  I think the simple question I ask myself about these things is: Is God able to do these things?  If God does exist and did create our universe and the LIFE in it, isn’t He also capable to impregnating a virgin or raise the dead?  I don’t necessarily believe God created our universe in the literal sense of the Genesis account.  I believe Genesis is an analogy.  I believe the creation was an infinitely complicated process that man will probably never understand.  So I believe God gave the simplest explanation to a people of the time of the simplest level of education.  I believe God set His laws of nature in motion with the intent of life as we know it now.  But I always come back to the question:  If there is a God, is it possible that He could have done it exactly as depicted in the bible?  Absolutely.  God – Yahweh – is an infinitely living being with infinite knowledge and power and I do believe with this God all things are possible.  That’s not to say all things are probably.

I rely on science to explain a lot of things the bible does not.  The bible does not go into detail about the DNA makeup of our bodied.  Science fills that gap.  I happen to believe there are certain aspects of evolution that are true.  We can witness these things in motion today.   

Even if every book of the bible had no accredited authors, it wouldn’t matter to me.  The book exists, it explains my God, it’s my standard for moral life, it has stood the test of time for thousands of years, and most importantly it explains God’s plan for our salvation.


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> Self-fulfilling prophesies are convenient aren’t they?  “People like me” know how to expose the flawed arguments people like you try to use ad nauseum.



OK, lets stop right now, no need to be a smart-azz.  I'm not here to judge anyone so I don't expect to be judged.  I respect everyone's beliefs here so I expect respect as well.  My "arguments" are no more flawed than yours.  The difference is that I can walk outside and SEE what I believe in, that's all.  I believe in god, just not your god.  This doesn't make me any more nor less spiritual than you.



PsyOps said:


> I have maintained, and probably always will, that I can’t prove the validity of my God any more than you can prove your god and certain aspects of science have it right.  My ‘Lucy’ example wasn’t an attempt prove you wrong, it was an attempt to make that point: we rely on certain levels of facts and faith to BELIEVE what we believe.  Atheists in this forum spend a lot of time trying to show that science disproves the existence of God; mostly the on the creation/evolution premise.
> 
> Let me qualify myself… I don’t doubt Lucy is 32 million years old.  I don’t doubt there are black holes.  I don’t doubt evolution is a fact.  I don’t doubt there is life somewhere else in the universe.  But if you’re going to force me to prove – with absolute certainty – that my God exists, then I have to throw back at you: prove – with absolute certainty – that there was a big bang that gave birth this universe.  And you admit you can’t; and I admit I can’t.  Well, if you had given me a chance – without all the  - you would understand that I’m not trying to prove you wrong; I’m only using the same logic that you’re using against me



If you don't doubt these things than what's the problem here?  It sounds like we agree except that you believe in a Christian God and I believe in another god.  You have a Bible and I don't.  I'll I'm doing here is trying to gain an understanding for one of the most successful religions in the world!  If there were Muslims or Jews in here I would LOVE to have this discussion with them!!!



PsyOps said:


> There is no absolute proof that global warming is happening.  If there were EVERYONE would believe it as fact.  There is no absolute proof that carbon dating is accurate; otherwise Biblical-literal Christians would be admitting how old our universe really is.  There is no absolute proof evolution happened the way Darwin claims; no one was there as a witness.  There is no absolute proof that God exists, otherwise everyone would believe.



Just because there is proof doesn't mean there wont always be fanatics that deny it.  There are people who believe scientists made up dinosaurs!  You don't prove something because everyone believes it (i.e. the Earth in the center of the universe, because everyone used to believe that, even the scientists) you prove it by showing the results in a repeatable experiment; if there are no counter-examples then there is proof; hence the peer review.



PsyOps said:


> I’m not a biblical-literalist.  I believe God created this universe and set certain things in nature in motion.  I believe science fills in a lot of the gaps that the bible doesn’t provide.  I believe the bible fills a lot of the gaps science doesn’t explain.  I feel together, through these debates, we can get answers we’re looking for.  I am satisfied with the answers I have learned so far.  I have chosen to believe carbon dating is fairly accurate, even though no one was actually there to document when Lucy died.  I have chosen to believe there are black holes, even though no one can actually go to one and prove, first-hand,that they truly exist.  I believe my God exists, even though I’ve seen His face or Heard his voice in the physical sense.  I know this God through the bible I read – witnessed accounts, billions of believers and archeological data.  But faith ends being the determining factor for all these things.



I'm glad your not a literalist, that is good.  Then please don't attack science, I wont attack Christianity.  Sound good?  I believe in my god because I want to believe; I don't need a book to guide my beliefs, I need my heart.  I use books to prove science.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> You apparently read Genesis literally. Even so, I agree with your statement quoted above. He most certainly is, and He is also capable of doing it however He so desired, because, ya know, He's God.
> 
> I'm thinking this is yet another problem with Protestant Sola Scriptura. The Word of God becomes stagnant instead of living. Protestants think in terms of either/or, not both/and.



Yes, I do take the Creation Account of Genesis literally. That's the difference between those of us who Believe God and those who say they "Believe In God". IOW: You say that you believe in God but you don't believe God's Word from the Holy Bible that states He Created all things in the chronological order of days which passed as Evening and Morning intervals.  




> Our doctrines don't change, but rather we come to a fuller understanding of what we already believe.



Yes, they do change.  For example: 

- RCC introduced Marian theology circa 300 years after Christ's Resurrection.  Had that been true, the first century teachings would have mentioned that to begin with. The RCC "assumed" Mary joined Jesus as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, etc. The RCC to this day admits that such teaching cannot be proven by the Bible but made it an official part of the RCC faith in 1950.

- Priests were once allowed to marry, then they were not. Now the RCC may be considering reinstating marriage for priests.

God's Truth is built upon the Solid Foundation of Jesus, The Rock of Salvation. God's Truth doesn't change nor have to give in to man's whims of changing for the sake of political correctness just to go along with what secular society wants to believe.

The secular theory of "evolution" allows for no God neededto be responsible for the universe and all life.

*There Is Only Onte Truth*


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> OK, lets stop right now, no need to be a smart-azz.



You're kidding right?  

Nearly all of your posts are full of sarcasm and in a tone of disrespect.


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> But you are disputing the facts of the bible.  I think the simple question I ask myself about these things is: Is God able to do these things?  If God does exist and did create our universe and the LIFE in it, isn’t He also capable to impregnating a virgin or raise the dead?  I don’t necessarily believe God created our universe in the literal sense of the Genesis account.  I believe Genesis is an analogy.  I believe the creation was an infinitely complicated process that man will probably never understand.  So I believe God gave the simplest explanation to a people of the time of the simplest level of education.  I believe God set His laws of nature in motion with the intent of life as we know it now.  But I always come back to the question:  If there is a God, is it possible that He could have done it exactly as depicted in the bible?  Absolutely.  God – Yahweh – is an infinitely living being with infinite knowledge and power and I do believe with this God all things are possible.  That’s not to say all things are probably.
> 
> I rely on science to explain a lot of things the bible does not.  The bible does not go into detail about the DNA makeup of our bodied.  Science fills that gap.  I happen to believe there are certain aspects of evolution that are true.  We can witness these things in motion today.



The question I like to ask is not "could god have done it" (of course, no matter what god you believe in he could do it) but rather "can science ALSO explain it, did god break his own rules?" That's the fun question. A lot of times; science can explain things in the bible, but that doesn't mean god didn't do them. The times science can't explain it is where it comes down to faith (to me) and these are the times where I happen to believe differently than you. I believe in a "hands off" god, more that he really did throw the dice, if you want a label it would be Diest (see John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin to name a few). I just found out Jefferson wrote a version of the bible sans the miracles! Sounds interesting! Here I come amazon 



PsyOps said:


> Even if every book of the bible had no accredited authors, it wouldn’t matter to me.  The book exists, it explains my God, it’s my standard for moral life, it has stood the test of time for thousands of years, and most importantly it explains God’s plan for our salvation.



And it should really be the standard for most moral life. By in large, it's good advice to live by!


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> You're kidding right?
> 
> Nearly all of your posts are full of sarcasm and in a tone of disrespect.



See previous comments to other poster. It's not my intention to sound like that and if I do I apologize. It's easy to seem sarcastic when you can't see the person you're talking to.


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> The question I like to ask is not "could god have done it" (of course, no matter what god you believe in he could do it) but rather "can science ALSO explain it, did god break his own rules?" That's the fun question. A lot of times; science can explain things in the bible, but that doesn't mean god didn't do them. The times science can't explain it is where it comes down to faith (to me) and these are the times where I happen to believe differently than you. I believe in a "hands off" god, more that he really did throw the dice, if you want a label it would be Diest (see John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin to name a few). I just found out Jefferson wrote a version of the bible sans the miracles! Sounds interesting! Here I come amazon



Science is made up of a bunch of humans struggling to explain things.  We are an arrogant and flawed bunch.  I’m not fooled for one minute that the scientific community has things figured out; I am skeptical about everything.  I’m also convinced that Christians very well may a bunch of things wrong.  I constantly pray for wisdom so as not to be fooled.

You and I don’t think too much differently.  I happen to think God is a ‘hands off’ God.  He set things in motion and is mostly letting things take its course.


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> Science is made up of a bunch of humans struggling to explain things.  We are an arrogant and flawed bunch.  I’m not fooled for one minute that the scientific community has things figured out; I am skeptical about everything.  I’m also convinced that Christians very well may a bunch of things wrong.  I constantly pray for wisdom so as not to be fooled.



The scientific community never claims to have it all figured out; otherwise there wouldn't be much need to anymore scientists! I don't think we'll ever figure it all out. Wouldn't be much fun after we did!



PsyOps said:


> You and I don’t think too much differently.  I happen to think God is a ‘hands off’ God.  He set things in motion and is mostly letting things take its course.



Maybe we do, but I believe in a totally hands off god I.e. No son of god, no miracles. But I'm not here to change anyone's mind, just to find people that like to think about things!


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> I just might have to think about that, but I feel like I should get a Koran too, to be fair


No need to. It would just confuse you...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> So just different roles in the church...and WRT children I assume.  OK, I can live with that, as long as I can own land, teach school, stay at home with kids, vote, drive, have an opinion, make the same amount of money for the same job............................


You can do all those things and more. 
Just don't ask to drive my Harley...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Well thank you!  You seem like a wonderful person as well


Stop by Red Robin in Californa any Sunday between 11:30 & 1:30 and we'll tip our iced tea glasses. 


UNA said:


> Maybe we do, but I believe in a totally hands off god I.e. No son of god, no miracles. But I'm not here to change anyone's mind, just to find people that like to think about things!


Why no Son of God or miracles?


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> People were - and still are - buried alive, it just happened a few years ago in DC!  So it happens and it certainly could have happened then.  You are right, he was beaten, crucified and stabbed...maybe this is a bad example.  What about Lazarus?


Dead. In the grave. They did not want to open his grave for Jesus because Lazarus would stink.


UNA said:


> No, because others have made good valid points; not just the same Sunday School stuff.  Other people in here have engaged in the discussion and actually influenced and changed my outlook!  I've had a wonderful opportunity to hear (read) other's point of views and it's greatly appreciated AND respected.  I've learned a lot in here, it is my hope that I've made other people think about things because I know I like thinking about things like this!  I'm not asking anyone to make me a believer because I'm not and I don't see myself changing by whole faith, I'm asking people for input.  I grew up hearing the same things your saying and I can make your arguments as well as you can.  No one is forcing you to participate in the mature religious conversation.  I'm sorry if I've offended you (or just made a good point that you cannot argue...) but please do not pass judgement on me, I'm not judging you nor anyone else in here.  I've learned that not all Christians are judgmental, closed minded Bible Thumpers and I hope others in here have learned that not all non-Christians are immature, atheist religion-bashers.  I know you will not take anything I've said here to heart, to you it's all or nothing.  I AM an immature, atheist religion-basher to you and I will never be able to open your heart to people who believe differently than you.  As a member of the church of "You Do Your Thing; I'll Do Mine": I hope you have a wonderful, fulfilling life.  Blessed Be.


Thank you for explaining what is in my thoughts about you. Strange, I don't remember thinking those thoughts. In addition to being a mathematician, you must be a remote mind reader too. And as for being judgmental, maybe you should take time to read with what you just blasted me.

The reason I said I was shaking the dust off is that I felt that further discussion was a fruitless waste of time. I am not led to debate. I am a proclaimer of the gospel. People either want to accept or they do not. I have heard most if not all of your retorts and challenges over the years from others. They are repetitive to me even if they are new to you.

But ... one last appeal. 

God loves you so much that He even provided mathematical proof that the Bible is divinely inspired. The Bible, the 66 books of the canon, are mathematical wonders. I hope you will take the time to read the references I have provided at the end of this post. God loves mathematicians and scientists and has provided the proof.

Here is an excerpt from the works of Dr. Ivan Panin, a mathematician:


> Panin was exiled from Russia. And after spending a number of years studying in Germany, he went to the United States where he became an outstanding lecturer on literary criticism.
> 
> Panin was known as a firm agnostic - so well known that when he discarded his agnosticism and accepted the Christian faith, the newspapers carried headlines telling of his conversion.
> 
> It was in 1890 that Panin made the discovery of the mathematical structure underlining the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. He was casually reading the first verse of the gospel of John in the Greek: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and the Word was God...".
> 
> Panin was curious as to why the Greek word for "the"' preceded the word "God"' in one case and not the other. In examining the text he became aware of a number relationship. This was the first of the discoveries that led to his conversion and uncovered the extensive numeric code.
> 
> Panin found his proof in the oldest and most accurate manuscripts - the Received Hebrew Text and the Westcott and Hort Text.
> 
> In the original languages of the Bible, mostly Hebrew and Greek, there are no separate symbols for numbers, letters of the alphabet are also used to indicate numbers.
> 
> The numeric value of a word is the sum total of all its letters. It was curiosity that first caused Panin to begin toying with the numbers behind the texts. Sequences and patterns began to emerge. These created such a stirring in the heart of the Russian that he dedicated 50 years of his life to painstakingly comb the pages of the Bible.
> 
> This complex system of numbering visibly and invisibly saturates every book of the scriptures emphasizing certain passages and illustrating deeper or further meaning in types and shadows. The 66 books of the Bible 39 in the Old and 27 in the New were written by 33 different people.
> 
> Those authors were scattered throughout various countries of the world and from widely different backgrounds. Many of them had little or no schooling. The whole Bible was written over a period of 1500 years with a 400 year silence apart from the Apocrypha between the two testaments. Despite the handicaps the biblical books are found to be a harmonious record, each in accord with the other.
> 
> Panin says the laws of probability are exceeded into the billions when we try and rationalize the authorship of the Bible as the work of man. He once said: "If human logic is worth anything at all we are simply driven to the conclusion that if my facts I have presented are true, man could never have done this.
> 
> "We must assume that a Power higher than man guided the writers in such a way, whether they knew it or not, they did it and the Great God inspired them to do it''.
> 
> The Bible itself states clearly that it is the literal God-breathed'' living word of the Creator. The words "Thus saith the Lord"' and "God said"' occur more than 2500 times throughout scripture.
> 
> In 2 Timothy 3:16 it states "All scripture is given by inspiration of God". Then in 2 Peter 9:20-21 it plainly states: "No prophecy of the scriptures is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".
> 
> Let's take the number seven as an illustration of the way the patterns work. Seven is the most prolific of the mathematical series which binds scripture together. The very first verse of the Bible "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen 1:1), contains over 30 different combinations of seven.
> 
> This verse has seven Hebrew words having a total of 28 letters 4 x 7. The numeric value of the three nouns "God", "heaven" and "earth" totals 777. Any number in triplicate expresses complete, ultimate or total meaning.
> 
> Also tightly sealed up with sevens are the genealogy of Jesus, the account of the virgin birth and the resurrection. Seven occurs as a number 187 times in the Bible (41 x 7), the phrase "seven-fold" occurs seven times and "seventy" occurs 56 times (7 x 8).
> 
> In the Book of Revelation seven positively shines out: there are seven golden candlesticks, seven letters to seven churches, a book sealed with seven seals, seven angels standing before the Lord with seven trumpets, seven thunders and seven last plagues. In fact there are over 50 occurrences of the number seven in Revelation alone.
> 
> There are 21 Old Testament writers whose names appear in the Bible (3 x 7). The numeric value of their names is divisible by seven. Of these 21, seven are named in the New Testament: Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea and Joel. The numeric values of these names is 1554 (222 x 7). David's name is found 1134 times (162 x 7).
> 
> God's seal also pervades creation as though it were woven into the very fabric of nature. ...



If you choose, you may read these references.

The Inspiration of the Scriptures Scientifically Demonstrated
Ivan Panin's - Bible Numerics
Evidence of Design: Beloved Numerologist - Chuck Missler - Koinonia House
BIBLE NUMERICS

You will accept or you will not. That is between you and God.


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> There is no absolute proof that carbon dating is accurate; *otherwise Biblical-literal Christians would be admitting how old our universe really is.*



God love you man, but I really don't think they would. 



Starman3000m said:


> Yes, I do take the Creation Account of Genesis literally. That's the difference between those of us who Believe God and those who say they "Believe In God". IOW: You say that you believe in God but you don't believe God's Word from the Holy Bible that states He Created all things in the chronological order of days which passed as Evening and Morning intervals.



I suppose you would say the same to PsyOps. I also suppose you think the earth is flat and set up on pillars and there will literally be a seven-headed, ten-horned beast raise out of the sea as in Revelations. If I didn't think you were so serious about it, I'd laugh at you for being so non-rational and un-reasonable.



Starman3000m said:


> Yes, they do change.  For example:
> 
> - RCC introduced Marian theology circa 300 years after Christ's Resurrection.  Had that been true, the first century teachings would have mentioned that to begin with. The RCC "assumed" Mary joined Jesus as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, etc. The RCC to this day admits that such teaching cannot be proven by the Bible but made it an official part of the RCC faith in 1950.



Not true, refer back to the quagmire that is the Mary thread for that's been answered repeatedly and ad nauseum. You still tout whatever it is you want to believe regardless of the facts given you, but I guess that's expected because you are, well, non-rational and un-reasonable.



Starman3000m said:


> - Priests were once allowed to marry, then they were not. Now the RCC may be considering reinstating marriage for priests.



You've shown once again that you don't know what you're talking about, celibacy is a discipline not a doctrine. I'll ask you ONCE AGAIN to get your facts straight before you go spouting off at the mouth. 



Starman3000m said:


> God's Truth is built upon the Solid Foundation of Jesus, The Rock of Salvation. God's Truth doesn't change nor have to give in to man's whims of changing for the sake of political correctness just to go along with what secular society wants to believe.



You're right about that much.



Starman3000m said:


> The secular theory of "evolution" allows for no God neededto be responsible for the universe and all life.



Secular being the key word there. The Genesis creation account "allows" for one to believe that God set the process of evolution in motion, and if you haven't noticed that's not a secular view. Then again, you read the book of Genesis literally, so why even bother pointing that out to you.


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> God love you man, but I really don't think they would.



I get you.  It took the Catholic church over 300 years to admit the earth isn’t the center of the universe.  No doubt Christians are a stubborn bunch.  And let me just say that I don’t know for certain that God didn’t create our universe in a literal 7 calendar days.  It’s my thought that God created nature to move much slower and that He wouldn’t change His rules of nature for the sake of expediency.  He is an eternal God and time is not a factor.  It’s my thought that God lives in eternity and His timeline is according to that reference.  He used simple numbers to explain to very uneducated people of the day the immense period of time it really took for His creation to take place.  Maybe the earth rotated slower in the beginning.  I don’t know.  I only know God’s nature doesn’t operate that way.

In the end, it’s not that big of a deal.  It’s not a salvation-determining factor.  Starman can believe whatever he wants about my faith and whether I simply believe in God as opposed to believing God.  If he wants to challenge my salvation on this front then he knows how to contact me   I’ll say this, I’m certain Starman says I’m wrong.  I don’t take that position.  He could very well be right.  And, like I said, it doesn’t much matter to me.


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> I get you.  It took the Catholic church over 300 years to admit the earth isn’t the center of the universe.  No doubt Christians are a stubborn bunch.  And let me just say that I don’t know for certain that God didn’t create our universe in a literal 7 calendar days.  It’s my thought that God created nature to move much slower and that He wouldn’t change His rules of nature for the sake of expediency.  He is an eternal God and time is not a factor.  It’s my thought that God lives in eternity and His timeline is according to that reference.  He used simple numbers to explain to very uneducated people of the day the immense period of time it really took for His creation to take place.  Maybe the earth rotated slower in the beginning.  I don’t know.  I only know God’s nature doesn’t operate that way.
> 
> In the end, it’s not that big of a deal.  It’s not a salvation-determining factor.  Starman can believe whatever he wants about my faith and whether I simply believe in God as opposed to believing God.  If he wants to challenge my salvation on this front then he knows how to contact me   I’ll say this, I’m certain Starman says I’m wrong.  I don’t take that position.  He could very well be right.  And, like I said, it doesn’t much matter to me.



You made your position clear, at least to me, the first time. I agree with you, and neither position is adverse to scripture.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> ...Not true, refer back to the quagmire that is the Mary thread for that's been answered repeatedly and ad nauseum. You still tout whatever it is you want to believe regardless of the facts given you, but I guess that's expected because you are, well, non-rational and un-reasonable.



Roman Catholicism is NOT the teaching of the New Testament Jesus nor of His disciples of the first century:



> The Roman Catholic church, headquartered in Rome, Italy, has its own powerful City-State, the Vatican. The Roman Catholic church unofficially came into being in 312 A.D., at the time of the so-called "miraculous conversion" to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine but he still worshipped the sun god. Although Christianity was not made the official religion of the Roman Empire until the edicts of Theodosius I in 380 and 381 A.D., Constantine, from 312 A.D. until his death in 337, was engaged in the process of simultaneously building pagan temples and Christian churches, and was slowly turning over the reins of his pagan priesthood to the Bishop of Rome. However, the family of Constantine did not give up the last vestige of his priesthood until after the disintegration of the Roman Empire – that being the title the emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood – Pontifex Maximus – a title which the popes would inherit. The popes also inherited Constantine's titles as the self-appointed civil head of the church – Summus Pontifex (Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Bishops).
> …
> Roman Catholicism makes salvation a long, complicated process with no assurance of eternal life and forgiveness of all sin. Baptism, Mass, Confession, prayers to Mary and the Saints, good works, and purgatory are all added to faith in Christ. By contrast, the Bible teaches salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Bible salvation is God's free gift to any sinner who believes that Christ died for their sins and rose again for their defense. Bible salvation gives immediate assurance of eternal life. No church ever saved anyone, but Christ can and will save everyone who will come and trust Him as their Saviour. Membership or faith in a church does not secure salvation for anyone, but trust Christ and Him alone and you will be saved for all eternity! Would you like to be saved? Salvation - Welcome - European American Evangelistic Crusades
> 
> Cult of Roman Catholicism





> ... celibacy is a discipline not a doctrine. I'll ask you ONCE AGAIN to get your facts straight before you go spouting off at the mouth.



Whether a "doctrine" or a "discipline" I was only pointing out that it was changed from what it used to be and that it might be changed back again.


----------



## Radiant1

Radiant1 said:


> Our doctrines don't change, but rather we come to a fuller understanding of what we already believe.





UNA said:


> I didn't mean to imply that doctrine changes, I know it doesn't.  But rather a fuller and more open minded understanding of our world and humanity in general.





Starman3000m said:


> Yes, they do change.  For example:
> 
> - Priests were once allowed to marry, then they were not. Now the RCC may be considering reinstating marriage for priests.





Radiant1 said:


> You've shown once again that you don't know what you're talking about, celibacy is a discipline not a doctrine. I'll ask you ONCE AGAIN to get your facts straight before you go spouting off at the mouth.





Starman3000m said:


> Whether a "doctrine" or a "discipline" I was only pointing out that it was changed from what it used to be and that it might be changed back again.



You were responding to a conversation about *doctrine*. But hey, that's ok, just throw something out there in error simply because it's anti-Catholic, it's all good! 

And, wow, look here...


Starman3000m said:


> P.S. The God I believe in is quite capable of having formed His Creation as mentioned in the Book of Genesis. tyvm





Radiant1 said:


> You apparently read Genesis literally. Even so, I agree with your statement quoted above.





Starman3000m said:


> God's Truth is built upon the Solid Foundation of Jesus, The Rock of Salvation. God's Truth doesn't change nor have to give in to man's whims of changing for the sake of political correctness just to go along with what secular society wants to believe.





Radiant1 said:


> You're right about that much.



We actually agree on some things in which I have no problem saying as much. You, however, hate Catholicism so much that you can't bring yourself to even acknowledge it but instead go on with your usual misinformed squawking. Truly, what does that say about you?

I can respect and appreciate intellectual honesty. You, sir, have none.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> No need to. It would just confuse you...



Not for guidance, for knowledge. I don't know much at all about Islam, feel like I should know a little more. Why not? 



ItalianScallion said:


> You can do all those things and more.
> Just don't ask to drive my Harley...



Well I'll just get my own then!  but I think I'd rather have my GTO 



ItalianScallion said:


> Stop by Red Robin in Californa any Sunday between 11:30 & 1:30 and we'll tip our iced tea glasses.



Might have to do that 



ItalianScallion said:


> Why no Son of God or miracles?



I just believe that who/what ever created everything just created it and left it alone


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Thank you for explaining what is in my thoughts about you. Strange, I don't remember thinking those thoughts. In addition to being a mathematician, you must be a remote mind reader too. And as for being judgmental, maybe you should take time to read with what you just blasted me.



All I was doing was reacting to your responses to me. If you didn't mean your responses to be taken as I took them then clarify. If you didn't mean to sound judgmental then say so!



2ndAmendment said:


> The reason I said I was shaking the dust off is that I felt that further discussion was a fruitless waste of time. I am not led to debate. I am a proclaimer of the gospel. People either want to accept or they do not. I have heard most if not all of your retorts and challenges over the years from others. They are repetitive to me even if they are new to you.



Your right, you're not changing and neither and am I! But I'm not here to change minds so if you are it IS a waste of time. 



2ndAmendment said:


> But ... one last appeal.
> 
> God loves you so much that He even provided mathematical proof that the Bible is divinely inspired. The Bible, the 66 books of the canon, are mathematical wonders. I hope you will take the time to read the references I have provided at the end of this post. God loves mathematicians and scientists and has provided the proof.
> 
> Here is an excerpt from the works of Dr. Ivan Panin, a mathematician:
> 
> 
> If you choose, you may read these references.
> 
> The Inspiration of the Scriptures Scientifically Demonstrated
> Ivan Panin's - Bible Numerics
> Evidence of Design: Beloved Numerologist - Chuck Missler - Koinonia House
> BIBLE NUMERICS
> 
> You will accept or you will not. That is between you and God.



If you look hard enough, you can find these patterns in ANY book of decent length. Did you know that there also exists a Koran Code? Check out the criticism section here: Bible code I know it wikipedia and "wikipedia can written by anyone" but this article has been fact checked and if that still isn't good enough, look at the references. 

As a mathematician who specializes in cryptology, I can tell you that these patterns are very common in MANY parts of our lives. I love finding patterns but they rarely mean anything outside the world of math.


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> I get you.  It took the Catholic church over 300 years to admit the earth isn’t the center of the universe.  No doubt Christians are a stubborn bunch.  And let me just say that I don’t know for certain that God didn’t create our universe in a literal 7 calendar days.  It’s my thought that God created nature to move much slower and that He wouldn’t change His rules of nature for the sake of expediency.  He is an eternal God and time is not a factor.  It’s my thought that God lives in eternity and His timeline is according to that reference.  He used simple numbers to explain to very uneducated people of the day the immense period of time it really took for His creation to take place.  Maybe the earth rotated slower in the beginning.  I don’t know.  I only know God’s nature doesn’t operate that way.
> 
> In the end, it’s not that big of a deal.  It’s not a salvation-determining factor.  Starman can believe whatever he wants about my faith and whether I simply believe in God as opposed to believing God.  If he wants to challenge my salvation on this front then he knows how to contact me   I’ll say this, I’m certain Starman says I’m wrong.  I don’t take that position.  He could very well be right.  And, like I said, it doesn’t much matter to me.



See, we definitely got off on the wrong foot.  I agree, but Christians aren't the only stubporn group around. The world of science can sometimes be reluctant to accept new ideas too. And the worlds there major religions are all stubborn in my opinion (or at least some believers are) 

Though I recognize evolution and other scientific theories, I also believe that the big bang may have been that Devine intervention the bible refers to. Bang! And then there was light. Bang! And then there were planets and so on. Maybe, instead of god saying "ping! And then there were plants and animals" god said "bang! And then there were the building blocks for life". I mean, would a long drawn out explanation of how life was scientifically created really have resonated with our ancients?  I don't know, just thinking 'out loud' here


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> You were responding to a conversation about *doctrine*. But hey, that's ok, just throw something out there in error simply because it's anti-Catholic, it's all good!
> 
> And, wow, look here...
> 
> 
> We actually agree on some things in which I have no problem saying as much. You, however, hate Catholicism so much that you can't bring yourself to even acknowledge it but instead go on with your usual misinformed squawking. Truly, what does that say about you?
> 
> I can respect and appreciate intellectual honesty. You, sir, have none.



Don't feed the trolls


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> All I was doing was reacting to your responses to me. If you didn't mean your responses to be taken as I took them then clarify. If you didn't mean to sound judgmental then say so!
> 
> 
> 
> Your right, you're not changing and neither and am I! But I'm not here to change minds so if you are it IS a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> If you look hard enough, you can find these patterns in ANY book of decent length. Did you know that there also exists a Koran Code? Check out the criticism section here: Bible code I know it wikipedia and "wikipedia can written by anyone" but this article has been fact checked and if that still isn't good enough, look at the references.
> 
> As a mathematician who specializes in cryptology, I can tell you that these patterns are very common in MANY parts of our lives. I love finding patterns but they rarely mean anything outside the world of math.



Did you bother to read any of the information? From your response, I surmise not. If you had bothered, you would have found  that there was a challenge issued for anyone to write a paragraph of at least 300 words having similar math relationships. No one ever tried since the process of doing so is a geometric progression with each word being harder to write than the last.

My only reason to engage on this forum with non-believers is to witness to them about God's love for them. That should be the purpose of every Christian since that is the command given us by Jesus. The purpose is to get non-believers to accept Jesus as Savior and Lord.

God provided the evidence; it is everywhere; He even provide proof for mathematicians. It is your choice to believe God or to go against Him (follow Satan passively). Your choice, for now, is plain. Maybe you will be touched by the Holy Spirit at some time in the future. For now, my assessment is correct and my time with you is wasted. Again, I shake the dust off.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> ...I can respect and appreciate intellectual honesty. You, sir, have none.



Thanks.  In the final analysis - *There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## PsyOps

Starman3000m said:


> *There Is Only One Truth*



So this begs the question: Do you understand this one truth, in every aspect of the Christian faith, on every level?


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> Not for guidance, for knowledge. I don't know much at all about Islam, feel like I should know a little more. Why not?


Some of what is says is wrong and misleading and I don't want you to be mislead or confused (as I've said). Nice people like you belong in Heaven...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Might have to do that


Please do! A couple of others have and it was a great time. 


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> I just believe that who/what ever created everything just created it and left it alone


Now what kind of good parents would do that to their kids? God wouldn't...


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Did you bother to read any of the information? From your response, I surmise not. If you had bothered, you would have found  that there was a challenge issued for anyone to write a paragraph of at least 300 words having similar math relationships. No one ever tried since the process of doing so is a geometric progression with each word being harder to write than the last.



Actually, they have found patterns just like they found in the bible in a lot of places, Moby Dick is a big one, War and Peace, even cereal boxes! So no one wrote your little 300 word paragraph because there is t any point in it. 



2ndAmendment said:


> My only reason to engage on this forum with non-believers is to witness to them about God's love for them. That should be the purpose of every Christian since that is the command given us by Jesus. The purpose is to get non-believers to accept Jesus as Savior and Lord.



Well you keep judging people and we'll all keep challenging you. It is your job to help non Christians who WANT the help; and I don't. I came here for discussion, not conversion. Thank you though 



2ndAmendment said:


> God provided the evidence; it is everywhere; He even provide proof for mathematicians. It is your choice to believe God or to go against Him (follow Satan passively). Your choice, for now, is plain. Maybe you will be touched by the Holy Spirit at some time in the future. For now, my assessment is correct and my time with you is wasted. Again, I shake the dust off.




God provided the kind of evidence only Christians see and believe. It's not the real, provable, tangible nor repeatable kind of evidence science uses. It's only evidence to the believers. And that's fine, just don't tout it as equal to scientific evidence.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Some of what is says is wrong and misleading and I don't want you to be mislead or confused (as I've said). Nice people like you belong in Heaven...



Thank you very much! I'll see you there! 

But how do you the Koran is wrong? I know extremest Muslims interpret the Koran to be a direction to murder non-believers, but I've been told by [normal] Muslims that that's like an OT versus NT thing where OT Allah is vengeful and NT Allah (with Mohamed) isn't. 



ItalianScallion said:


> Now what kind of good parents would do that to their kids? God wouldn't...



If you believe in "God the Father" then you're right. But i believe in a higher power that is more of a spirit, an entity that exists 'up there' and down here in ALL of us, in the animals, plants, in nature. Kind of a stereotypical Native American god. I suppose if someone demanded a label, I would be Wicca. But Wicca for me is a lot like Buddhism where it is a "way of life", not a religion nor a specific belief structure. You can follow the basic tenants of of Wicca or Buddhism and believe In whatever higher power you want, including Christianity, Judaism or Islam! But I don't give myself this label nor another, hence the UNAffiliated


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> God provided the kind of evidence only Christians see and believe. It's not the real, provable, tangible nor repeatable kind of evidence science uses. It's only evidence to the believers. And that's fine, just don't tout it as equal to scientific evidence.



What is this “real, provable, tangible, [and] repeatable kind of evidence science uses”?  This is why I went into the discussion we had earlier.  I don’t think science has such “REAL, provable, tangible, and repeatable” proof of a great many things they believe they are right about.  With so many things I can always reply with “prove it with absolute certainty”.

I’ve told this story before… When I was living at home with my folks (a looong time ago  ) our neighbor was John Mather.  I had the honor of having a lot of discussions about deep space and the big bang (which was his specialty).  He knew all sorts of complex math that supported such a theory; but when I asked him to prove there was such a big bang with REAL, tangible evidence he couldn’t.  He admits that they can only theorize (a scientific GUESS) with limited observations of space and math (which is limited to what we know here on earth) about such a big bang.  In other words, no one was there, no one witnessed it first hand, and no one can go back in time (except in theoretical calculations) to prove it actually happened.  Same is true with evolution, black holes, how dinosaurs really died off, the origin of man…  

Putting your faith in such things is no different than Christians putting their faith in God.  Can’t prove it, but there is enough evidence to support His existence.


----------



## Starman3000m

PsyOps said:


> So this begs the question: Do you understand this one truth, in every aspect of the Christian faith, on every level?



That's not what I am saying Psyops!  What I proclaim is that of the varying differences of thought that we all discuss here - *There Is Only One Truth*.

*For example:*

1.The Genesis Account of Creation happened as written in the Holy Bible, *or*, the theory of  Evolution is how this universe and mankind came to be : *There Is Only One Truth*

2. Jesus Is the Only Way, Truth and Life through which Salvation is received, *or*, all roads lead to God including Roman CAtholicism which proclaims that Mary is alive bodily  - assisting Jesus in Heaven with the mediation and salvation of mankind: *There Is Only One Truth*

3. We are saved not on any of our own good works and "righteousness" but through the Grace of God and Atoning Blood of Christ, *or*, we still must earn our Salvation by following specifically prescribed tenets, rituals, and traditions of men: *There Is Only One Truth*

4. The True Church of Christ is comprised of the Spiritual Body of Believers worldwide who have repented and by faith have invited Jesus to be the Lord and Saviour of their life, *or*, the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church that has been given exclusivety to be the dispenser of the Gospel: *There Is Only One Truth*

5. God has given mankind free will to choose turning to Christ for salvation or reject Christ and choose the world, *or*, God has already determined from the start whom He was going to allow to believe and whom He was going to keep from believing and then send them to Hell: *There Is Only One Truth*

6. Heaven and Hell exist and people choose where they want to spend eternity, or, God will not send anyone to Hell but will save everyone in the end: *There Is Only One Truth*

7. God is a personal God and still works His Miracles through the Intercession of The Holy Spirit during our present time, or, God no longer is active as in the days of Jesus and the disciples: *There Is Only One Truth*

The list could go on, but you get the idea. As far as anyone understanding all aspects of Christian life, no one knows everything, but there is enough evidence in the Holy Bible from which to understand the specific Truths which are essential to Salvation and that is the *Truth* that is important to know and contend for.

Yes, in all things: *There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> ... But how do you the Koran is wrong? I know extremest Muslims interpret the Koran to be a direction to murder non-believers, but I've been told by [normal] Muslims that that's like an OT versus NT thing where OT Allah is vengeful and NT Allah (with Mohamed) isn't.



That's True but in "reverse".  There are Meccan and Medinan Surrahs.

Briefly:

*The "Peaceful Al'lah*"

The Meccan Surrahs were at first the peaceful attempts that Muhammad preached in order to bring Jews, Christians and all others to the religion of Islam as revealed to him by an angel in a dark cave. Muhammad claimed that the Jews and Christians had erred in their faiths and that Islam was the only true religion and that he had been ordained by Al'lah as the "last and final prophet to mankind".  Muhammad found resistance and was not very convincing to the Jews and Christians that he really was a "prophet of God".


*The "Vengeful Al'lah"*
The Medinan Surrahs that call for subjection and persecution of all non-Muslims occurred when Muhammad was met with continued objection and resistance from Jews and Christians and by members of his own tribe, the Quraysh.  Muhammad and his followers were driven from Mecca and he fled to Medina.  Muhammad gathered more followers among the Medinans, established a standing army and proclaimed that anyone who rejected his "prophethood" and Islam as the religion of truth should be persecuted, given a chance to accept or be killed. Upon gathering military strength, Muhammad proclaimed that he was "commanded to fight with all men and all should be made to worship Al'lah as he and his followers did.

The rest is history.  Today's Jihadists are obeying the last and final command of Muhammad which is to dominate this world and bring it under the sword of Islam.

Research


----------



## PsyOps

Starman3000m said:


> That's not what I am saying Psyops!  What I proclaim is that of the varying differences of thought that we all discuss here - *There Is Only One Truth*.
> 
> *For example:*
> 
> 1.The Genesis Account of Creation happened as written in the Holy Bible, *or*, the theory of  Evolution is how this universe and mankind came to be : *There Is Only One Truth*
> 
> 2. Jesus Is the Only Way, Truth and Life through which Salvation is received, *or*, all roads lead to God including Roman CAtholicism which proclaims that Mary is alive bodily  - assisting Jesus in Heaven with the mediation and salvation of mankind: *There Is Only One Truth*
> 
> 3. We are saved not on any of our own good works and "righteousness" but through the Grace of God and Atoning Blood of Christ, *or*, we still must earn our Salvation by following specifically prescribed tenets, rituals, and traditions of men: *There Is Only One Truth*
> 
> 4. The True Church of Christ is comprised of the Spiritual Body of Believers worldwide who have repented and by faith have invited Jesus to be the Lord and Saviour of their life, *or*, the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church that has been given exclusivety to be the dispenser of the Gospel: *There Is Only One Truth*
> 
> 5. God has given mankind free will to choose turning to Christ for salvation or reject Christ and choose the world, *or*, God has already determined from the start whom He was going to allow to believe and whom He was going to keep from believing and then send them to Hell: *There Is Only One Truth*
> 
> 6. Heaven and Hell exist and people choose where they want to spend eternity, or, God will not send anyone to Hell but will save everyone in the end: *There Is Only One Truth*
> 
> 7. God is a personal God and still works His Miracles through the Intercession of The Holy Spirit during our present time, or, God no longer is active as in the days of Jesus and the disciples: *There Is Only One Truth*
> 
> The list could go on, but you get the idea. As far as anyone understanding all aspects of Christian life, no one knows everything, but there is enough evidence in the Holy Bible from which to understand the specific Truths which are essential to Salvation and that is the *Truth* that is important to know and contend for.
> 
> Yes, in all things: *There Is Only One Truth*



In all of your statements, you claim you have that One Truth; yet we disagree on a couple (primarily 1 and 7).  IOW, I don’t have that One Truth… according to you.  Would you assert that, given this, I am not saved?  If so, I would say you don’t have this so-called knowledge of the “One Truth”.  If not, then what’s the point?


----------



## Starman3000m

PsyOps said:


> In all of your statements, you claim you have that One Truth; yet we disagree on a couple (primarily 1 and 7).  IOW, I don’t have that One Truth… according to you.  Would you assert that, given this, I am not saved?  If so, I would say you don’t have this so-called knowledge of the “One Truth”.  If not, then what’s the point?



Addressing #1:
The Holy Bible states that God Created all things in six (6) days within evening and morning intervals.  "Man's wisdom" came along a few thousand years later and theorized that millions of years of "evolution" account for the existence of the universe and all lifeforms. For Atheists, no God was/is needed for this theory to be accepted.  For believers in God, this theory contends that perhaps God could have created all things within 6 days but "more than likely" He did it over millions of years as theorized in the evolution account.

Then the question would be: At what point in evolution was there a perfect Garden of Eden where God literally spoke to Adam and Eve and warned Adam about which tree to avoid? And is there a real Satan that deceived Eve that caused our separation from God as proclaimed in the Bible? What point in evolution would that have happened?

You have previously stated that you believe in a literal Noah's flood that even Jesus acknowledged. Could that have been the reason for the extinction of dinosaurs (giants of those days) and the cause of the magnitiude in geological erosions and upheavals of the world's surface as what happens (on a smaller scale) during torrential floods? Such massive and catastrophical event as a global flood could certainly change this world's topography in a matter of weeks rather than millions of years, as theorized in faith of evolutionists.

In this regard, I don't believe that your leaning toward "evolution" is the basis of determining whether you are saved or not.  It's just believing man's account over the Word of God that is written in the Holy Bible. However, believing in the New Testament Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour and submitting your will to God's Will is the basis for Salvation, according to scripture.  Learning to live in a spiritual relationship with God from that point on is what makes you a new creation and a Child of God.

Addressing *#7*: (Whether God is still active today through Divine Intervention)

Jesus proclaimed that He would send the Holy Spirit upon His return to Heaven; also proclaimed that the Father would send the Holy Spirit. (They are One)  The work of the Holy Spirit is to reprove this world of sin and call mankind unto Salvation through faith in Christ.  The work of the Holy Spirit is sent to indwell the life of a believer and establish a spiritual relationship and fellowship with God.  The work of the Holy Spirit is to continue manifesting miracles and Divine Interventions that bring unbelievers to faith in Christ and confirm God's presence in this world to those who believe.  Jesus said He would not leave us comfortless but would send the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, to be our teacher, Advocate and Guide, and through which we become Born Again Children of God. It is the Holy Spirit that seals us unto the Day of Redemption.  Blasphemy/Rejection of God's active Holy Spirit is the only unforgiveable sin.

Would you consider yourself a Born-Again Believer in Christ and Child of God?


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> But how do you the Koran is wrong? I know extremest Muslims interpret the Koran to be a direction to murder non-believers, but I've been told by [normal] Muslims that that's like an OT versus NT thing where OT Allah is vengeful and NT Allah (with Mohamed) isn't.


How does one know that 1+1=4 is wrong? They verify it against "the truth". That example is easy but what about really deep or un-provable truths? We have to defer back to the "higher power" or Maker of all things because none of us was there in most cases. Even science can't prove things that happened in the beginning. Through much research and study, only one source of truth has been found........and (miracle of miracles) it was authored by that "higher power"! 

Once the truth is found, all things can now be compared to it. When people found out that 1+1=2, standing 1+1=3 next to it proves that the latter is wrong. Simple isn't it? 

That's how we know which other beliefs are right or wrong. There's one book of truth can be used to compare what is and isn't true. So, to answer your question, that's how we know the Koran isn't from the "higher power" and that those who follow it are not believing in the "higher power" that really exists. Allah means God in their language but the meaning they use doesn't describe the one true "higher power" called God. In other threads, I've listed some ways to prove that the Bible is that book of truth. Using scientific methods and simple common sense.

The God of the OT is the same God as in the NT. Things were different in the OT days because God had to "lay down the law" and firmly establish Himself as God in the minds of the people. That sometimes meant severe punishment. God didn't change His mind or methods, He just knew that, unless the OT moral laws continued, mankind would slowly destroy itself (which it is doing today and very quickly too). God even made it easier for mankind to know Him but much of mankind chose not to. So God let's mankind have plenty of freedom to hang himself but He will come back in the near future to make things right one more time, forever. 


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> If you believe in "God the Father" then you're right. But i believe in a higher power that is more of a spirit, an entity that exists 'up there' and down here in ALL of us, in the animals, plants, in nature. Kind of a stereotypical Native American god. I suppose if someone demanded a label, I would be Wicca. But Wicca for me is a lot like Buddhism where it is a "way of life", not a religion nor a specific belief structure. You can follow the basic tenants of of Wicca or Buddhism and believe In whatever higher power you want, including Christianity, Judaism or Islam! But I don't give myself this label nor another, hence the UNAffiliated


God IS a Spirit and He does exist everywhere, but He isn't IN everything. There's no need for that. And yes, Wicca & Buddhism is a way of life but neither one can lead you to Heaven; that's the problem. Christianity covers it all and CAN get you to Heaven. Why go elsewhere when you can have it all in one? :shrug:


PsyOps said:


> In other words, no one was there, no one witnessed it first hand, and no one can go back in time (except in theoretical calculations) to prove it actually happened.  Same is true with evolution, black holes, how dinosaurs really died off, the origin of man. Putting your faith in such things is no different than Christians putting their faith in God.  *Can’t prove it, but there is enough evidence to support His existence.*


Well said!


----------



## PsyOps

Starman3000m said:


> Addressing #1:
> The Holy Bible states that God Created all things in six (6) days within evening and morning intervals.



Just as we Galileo taught us that the Church had it wrong about our universe, I believe we have learned a lot about the physical world that we didn’t – or perhaps couldn’t – understand when Genesis was written.  It’s my thought that, given what science has learned, that the laws of nature – the laws that God created – don’t work this fast.  It makes no sense to me that God would expedite His creation then suddenly slow all other processes down so substantially.  I mean it takes 9 months for a human to gestate.  Why would God create the entire universe in 6 days, yet make the human gestation period 9 months?

As I stated before, maybe it’s just God’s way of explaining an extremely complicate process to a very uneducated people of those days.  Maybe back when God created the earth it rotated far slower than it does now.  I don’t know.  I really don’t care.  It’s not worth debating unless you enjoy having those sorts of debates.

As I’ve also stated, God could very well have created this universe in 6 literal days.  It’s within His power.  But it makes no sense to me that he would alter His laws of nature for the sake of expediency.



Starman3000m said:


> Addressing #7: (Whether God is still active today through Divine Intervention)



I remember back when I was in the 4th grade a 6th grade girl (Susan) got a brain tumor, which was cancerous.  I remember lots of prayers for her healing were done.  LOTS!  Susan suffered horribly and died before she finished the 6th grade.  I’ve seen this happen time and time again.  I’ve known believers killed in car accidents, on the battlefield, suffer all sorts of illnesses and pain.  God did not intervene, no matter how many prayers are said.  Trusting in God does not stop this world from taking it’s natural course.  I know a former co-worker who is dying from stomach cancer right now.  I do not pray for his healing because I don't know if it's God's will.  I pray for his peace and that he be saved.  In that he will receive far more than if he were to survive and not be saved.  When I hear someone claim “Praise God, He healed her” I always think “What about Susan?”  I’ve also  seen false practices of healing, speaking in tongues, and prophesy.  I knew a girl who had a “prophet” tell her she was going to get a car and would travel to Italy.  She never got the car and she never left Ft. Walton Beach FL.  And she is left with the disillusion of lies and deceit.  It pushed her away from God.  Christians spend an awful lot of time pushing such things on people thinking they are bringing them to God (and maybe in many cases they do), and very little time just preaching God’s Word, God’s love, compassion, charity, and sacrifice.  The only place God would intervene is in this.  I believe God is active in our hearts when we speak of His love for us.



Starman3000m said:


> Would you consider yourself a Born-Again Believer in Christ and Child of God?



Yes!


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> What is this “real, provable, tangible, [and] repeatable kind of evidence science uses”?  This is why I went into the discussion we had earlier.  I don’t think science has such “REAL, provable, tangible, and repeatable” proof of a great many things they believe they are right about.  With so many things I can always reply with “prove it with absolute certainty”.



Science does not have proof of everything, no one (who knows how science works) claims such.  That's the difference between a theory and a law of science.  A theory has *evidence* while a law has *proof/facts* (mathematical proof).  For example, one can theorize that the universe started with the "Big Bang", there is mathematical and observational *evidence*.  Though extremely convincing (_many cosmologists accept this 'theory'_) it is not 100% provable with absolute certainty.  On the other hand, I can *prove* things like 1+1=2, that I am a female, that I am my father's daughter.  This is the difference between "REAL, provable, tangible, and repeatable" evidence used in the sciences and the "faith" used by the religious.  I am not saying one is _better_ than the other, just that one is undeniable no matter what you come up with (however, in the sciences, if someone finds the counterexample, things are reevaluated, this is the BIG difference between religion and science) 



PsyOps said:


> ...they can only theorize (a scientific GUESS) with limited observations of space and math (which is limited to what we know here on earth) about such a big bang.  In other words, no one was there, no one witnessed it first hand, and no one can go back in time (except in theoretical calculations) to prove it actually happened.  Same is true with evolution, black holes, how dinosaurs really died off, the origin of man…



Math is provable, it's what I spent the better part of 4 years learning how to do.

Your examples (evolution, black holes, how dinosaurs really died off, the origin of man) are not things that scientists claim to have undeniable proof of, they are all theories.  We have not found the missing link, a unifying theory...and BTW, we do have proof of black holes, we've SEEN them.  We just don't have proof of exactly how they work nor what happens to matter/energy once it crossed the Event Horizon.  

Scientific theories begin with a general statement, yes, often a guess.  "If.........then......." the goal is to prove it.  Often we have one or the other, we have observations and no math or we have math with no observations.  Either way, we're stuck with a theory here.  It's when we get BOTH the math and the observations that we (are at least very close to) a law.


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> That's True but in "reverse".  There are Meccan and Medinan Surrahs.
> 
> Briefly:
> 
> *The "Peaceful Al'lah*"
> 
> The Meccan Surrahs were at first the peaceful attempts that Muhammad preached in order to bring Jews, Christians and all others to the religion of Islam as revealed to him by an angel in a dark cave. Muhammad claimed that the Jews and Christians had erred in their faiths and that Islam was the only true religion and that he had been ordained by Al'lah as the "last and final prophet to mankind".  Muhammad found resistance and was not very convincing to the Jews and Christians that he really was a "prophet of God".
> 
> 
> *The "Vengeful Al'lah"*
> The Medinan Surrahs that call for subjection and persecution of all non-Muslims occurred when Muhammad was met with continued objection and resistance from Jews and Christians and by members of his own tribe, the Quraysh.  Muhammad and his followers were driven from Mecca and he fled to Medina.  Muhammad gathered more followers among the Medinans, established a standing army and proclaimed that anyone who rejected his "prophethood" and Islam as the religion of truth should be persecuted, given a chance to accept or be killed. Upon gathering military strength, Muhammad proclaimed that he was "commanded to fight with all men and all should be made to worship Al'lah as he and his followers did.
> 
> The rest is history.  Today's Jihadists are obeying the last and final command of Muhammad which is to dominate this world and bring it under the sword of Islam.
> 
> Research



I'm just repeating what I've been told by Muslims.  I honestly do not know enough to defend OR attack Muslims.  

And I understand why you feel the way you do about the Islamic faith.  I really do and I hope you believe that, no hard feeling here.

But you have to understand that there are extremists in EVERY group and for some reason they always seem to be the loudest.  That's how these negative stereotypes get started.  It's sad.  After WWII, many Americans felt the same way about the Japanese and the Germans.  But we learned that not everyone from those groups is a 'bad guy'.  Learn from history, there are two sides to "Never Forget".




Would you mind providing the specific links to your sources?  And are all your sources from you?  I noticed that the link you provided looks like your own website.


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> For Atheists, no God was/is needed for this theory to be accepted.



Scientist =/= Atheist.  Religion and science do not have to be separate (all the time)............



Starman3000m said:


> Then the question would be: At what point in evolution was there a perfect Garden of Eden where God literally spoke to Adam and Eve and warned Adam about which tree to avoid? And is there a real Satan that deceived Eve that caused our separation from God as proclaimed in the Bible? What point in evolution would that have happened?
> 
> You have previously stated that you believe in a literal Noah's flood that even Jesus acknowledged. Could that have been the reason for the extinction of dinosaurs (giants of those days) and the cause of the magnitiude in geological erosions and upheavals of the world's surface as what happens (on a smaller scale) during torrential floods? Such massive and catastrophical event as a global flood could certainly change this world's topography in a matter of weeks rather than millions of years, as theorized in faith of evolutionists.



.........which looks like what you're doing here.  I think this is all the people on this thread are trying to do here; show you that religion and science are not mutually exclusive.  And ideas like this are not exclusive to Christianity because as I've said before, I do not label myself as a Christian but I do believe in a higher power who is integral to the formation of the 'universe' and life.



Starman3000m said:


> Would you consider yourself a Born-Again Believer in Christ and Child of God?



What's the difference?  I really don't know!


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> How does one know that 1+1=4 is wrong? They verify it against "the truth". That example is easy but what about really deep or un-provable truths? We have to defer back to the "higher power" or Maker of all things because none of us was there in most cases. Even science can't prove things that happened in the beginning. Through much research and study, only one source of truth has been found........and (miracle of miracles) it was authored by that "higher power"!
> 
> Once the truth is found, all things can now be compared to it. When people found out that 1+1=2, standing 1+1=3 next to it proves that the latter is wrong. Simple isn't it?



You just cannot compare the proof that 1+1=2 to the faith of a religion.  I can take the mathematical proof that 1+1=2 to ANYONE who understand addition and they cannot challenge it, there exists no counterexample because the proof is perfect, it covers every instance of Real Number addition.  You cannot do this with the 'proof' you have of a Christian God.



ItalianScallion said:


> That's how we know which other beliefs are right or wrong. There's one book of truth can be used to compare what is and isn't true. So, to answer your question, that's how we know the Koran isn't from the "higher power" and that those who follow it are not believing in the "higher power" that really exists. Allah means God in their language but the meaning they use doesn't describe the one true "higher power" called God. In other threads, I've listed some ways to prove that the Bible is that book of truth. Using scientific methods and simple common sense.



But as I've said, without real proof, you cannot definitively say one belief structure is right and another is wrong.



ItalianScallion said:


> God IS a Spirit and He does exist everywhere, but He isn't IN everything. There's no need for that. And yes, Wicca & Buddhism is a way of life but neither one can lead you to Heaven; that's the problem. Christianity covers it all and CAN get you to Heaven. Why go elsewhere when you can have it all in one? :shrug:



There IS a need for it if that's what you have faith in.  I know that my religious beliefs apply only to myself (and maybe if there are others that agree) I cannot tell you that I'm right because I understand that I may not be, and I cannot )for the same reasons) tell you that you are wrong.  Our beliefs are just different!


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> It’s not worth debating unless you enjoy having those sorts of debates.


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> ...Would you mind providing the specific links to your sources?  And are all your sources from you?  I noticed that the link you provided looks like your own website.



Sources are cited throughout the chapters and also on the last page of my website (after the _conclusion_ section) and listed "references".  However, to save you the time, here is the list of my reference sources:



> The Noble Qur'an   Select Translations: Yusuf Ali, Pickthal, Shakir
> CRCC: Center For Muslim-Jewish Engagement: Resources: Religious Texts
> 
> Glossary Terms: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary.html
> 
> Translation of Sahih Bukhari - Translator: M. Muhsin Khan
> CRCC: Center For Muslim-Jewish Engagement: Resources: Religious Texts
> 
> Translation of Sahih Muslim - Translator: Abdul Hamid Siddiqui
> CRCC: Center For Muslim-Jewish Engagement: Resources: Religious Texts
> 
> Translation of Malik's Muwatta - Translators:A'isha Abdarahman and Ya'qub Johnson
> CRCC: Center For Muslim-Jewish Engagement: Resources: Religious Texts
> 
> Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud - Translator: Prof. Ahmad Hasan
> CRCC: Center For Muslim-Jewish Engagement: Resources: Religious Texts
> 
> Islamic Server of MSA-USC  CRCC: Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement : Resources : Religious Texts: Islamic Texts
> 
> Introduction to Islam:  CRCC: Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement : Resources : Religious Texts: Islamic Texts
> 
> Other Reference Sites:
> 
> http://www.religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/islam.html
> 
> http://www.discoverislam.com/6.html/
> 
> The Avalon Project : Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy
> 
> Taliban Timeline &mdash; Infoplease.com
> 
> Al Gazhali Collection: The Sayings of Jesus mosque.com
> 
> Old Testament Scripture References: Tanakh Holy Bible, King James Ver. 1611
> 
> New Testament Scripture References: The Holy Bible, King James Version, 1611




(*Note:* Some of the reference links used in 2001/2002 have since expired and no longer on the Internet)


Gathering and compiling the research material for the website began from October 2001 (shortly after 9/11) through December 2002.  Prior to the events of 9/11, I was only previously aware of the Shia' rituals of blood-letting and had only a vague understanding of the sectarian differences in the Muslim faith. What was planned to be my own personal journey to briefly find out the truth about Islam turned out to be an intense year-long study of the Qur'an and Ahadith and, thus, the resulting treatise. The chapters were designed to be short and easy to read.  I invite you to scan through the info sometime and feel free to ask any questions. 

Research


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> The sources are listed on the last page of my website within the conclusion section and listed "references".  However, to save you the time, here is the list of my reference sources:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (*Note:* Some of the reference links used in 2001/2002 have since expired and no longer on the Internet)
> 
> 
> Gathering and compiling the research material for the website began from October 2001 (shortly after 9/11) through December 2002.  Prior to the events of 9/11, I was only previously aware of the Shia' rituals of blood-letting and had only a vague understanding of the sectarian differences in the Muslim faith. What was planned to be my own personal journey to briefly find out the truth about Islam turned out to be an intense year-long study of the Qur'an and Ahadith and, thus, the resulting treatise. The chapters were designed to be short and easy to read.  I invite you to scan through the info sometime and feel free to ask any questions.
> 
> Research



again..."you have to understand that there are extremists in EVERY group and for some reason they always seem to be the loudest. That's how these negative stereotypes get started. It's sad. After WWII, many Americans felt the same way about the Japanese and the Germans. But we learned that not everyone from those groups is a 'bad guy'. Learn from history, there are two sides to "Never Forget"."

I will not participate in the prejudice on that page.  I only asked for your citations to know whether those "conclusions" were your own or someone else's...sounds like it might be a combination.  When learning about something as dividing as religion, you need to research both side, the extremists as well as the normal ones because i know FOR A FACT that not all Muslims are extreme like you seem to believe.  It only takes ONE counterexample to prove something is not a fact.


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> again..."you have to understand that there are extremists in EVERY group and for some reason they always seem to be the loudest. That's how these negative stereotypes get started. It's sad. After WWII, many Americans felt the same way about the Japanese and the Germans. But we learned that not everyone from those groups is a 'bad guy'. Learn from history, there are two sides to "Never Forget"."
> 
> I will not participate in the prejudice on that page.  I only asked for your citations to know whether those "conclusions" were your own or someone else's...sounds like it might be a combination.  When learning about something as dividing as religion, you need to research both side, the extremists as well as the normal ones because i know FOR A FACT that not all Muslims are extreme like you seem to believe.  It only takes ONE counterexample to prove something is not a fact.



Did you read the section titled, " A Message to Moderate Muslims" ?


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> You just cannot compare the proof that 1+1=2 to the faith of a religion.  I can take the mathematical proof that 1+1=2 to ANYONE who understand addition and they cannot challenge it, there exists no counterexample because the proof is perfect, it covers every instance of Real Number addition.  You cannot do this with the 'proof' you have of a Christian God.


Sure we can. Our faith comes from the "evidence". No Christian just woke up one morning and decided to blindly follow Jesus. There is plenty of physical proof in the historical written evidence, archaeological evidence, prophetic evidence & statistical evidence that gives the Bible a BIG edge over all other books...


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> Science does not have proof of everything, no one (who knows how science works) claims such.  That's the difference between a theory and a law of science.  A theory has *evidence* while a law has *proof/facts* (mathematical proof).  For example, one can theorize that the universe started with the "Big Bang", there is mathematical and observational *evidence*.  Though extremely convincing (_many cosmologists accept this 'theory'_) it is not 100% provable with absolute certainty.  On the other hand, I can *prove* things like 1+1=2, that I am a female, that I am my father's daughter.  This is the difference between "REAL, provable, tangible, and repeatable" evidence used in the sciences and the "faith" used by the religious.  I am not saying one is _better_ than the other, just that one is undeniable no matter what you come up with (however, in the sciences, if someone finds the counterexample, things are reevaluated, this is the BIG difference between religion and science)



There is no absolute proof that black holes exist.  You can’t place it in front of me and say “there it is”.  You can’t take me to one and show it to me.  All you have is deep space observations that clue you in to their existence.  Apply some math to that and you have a black hole.  My point is not whether black holes exist or not (I happen to think they do); my point is the same level of evidence that proves the existence of black holes is the same level of evidence that proves there is a God.  Short of actually give you the tangible, the rest relies on faith of their existence.



UNA said:


> Scientific theories begin with a general statement, yes, often a guess.  "If.........then......." the goal is to prove it.  Often we have one or the other, we have observations and no math or we have math with no observations.  Either way, we're stuck with a theory here.  It's when we get BOTH the math and the observations that we (are at least very close to) a law.



My argument to these ‘laws’ is they are limited to what we know on this earth and some immediate celestial bodies in our solar system.  Can you really assume the math used to prove certain theories doesn’t change in other parts of space?  Is it possible that an object assumed to be 3 trillion light years away is only a few billion, but because of galactic distortions it gives the illusion that it’s 3 trillion light years away?  Scientists can’t even agree on whether space is infinite in every direction, if it bends on itself, or if it is only as big as the mass it contains.  Hawking aimed to tear the scientific community apart with his belief that matter was destroyed in a black hole, while others claimed he was wrong.  Eventually Hawking admitted he was wrong.  Well, how can any of them possibly know for sure?  No one can go to a black hole and prove it for sure.  All they have is limited observations and math learned on this earth that may not apply in other parts of the universe.  Neither here nor there, they believe they are right.  With everything they theorize, I can always say “you can’t prove it with absolute certainty”.  

The same is true with God.  I am convinced my God exists.  I have experienced enough to convince me of this.  Just as math fills that void for theory, God fills that void that science cannot explain.  Obviously I’m not above believing there is a higher, more powerful being than us; that created all of this stuff we are trying to learn about.  There is too much order in our universe to chalk everything up to random chemical interactions to explain our existence.


----------



## cccfree

To quote lyrics from the Wilco "you never know":

Every generation thinks / its the end of the world


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> Did you read the section titled, " A Message to Moderate Muslims" ?



Yes, but you cannot excuse intolerance with condescending advice.

OK, I skimmed your site...why don't you take a look at this site I just read: Kill the Infidels Surah 9:5

"This article is about the oft-quoted, or rather misquoted, Surah 9:5 verse of the Quran, which is claimed to call upon "all" Muslims to kill "all" non-Muslims or the so-called "Infidels".

Muslims are often questioned, "Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?" The answer is absolutely not!

Then, we are asked another question: "Why then does the Quran say, "fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?" (9:5). 

There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself."

And there are explanations far to long for this forum on the page as well.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Sure we can. Our faith comes from the "evidence". No Christian just woke up one morning and decided to blindly follow Jesus. There is plenty of physical proof in the historical written evidence, archaeological evidence, prophetic evidence & statistical evidence that gives the Bible a BIG edge over all other books...



Can you show an undeniable proof of the existence of the Christian God? Or of any of the miracles?  (and remember how inaccurate eyewitness testimony is in our courts of law)


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> There is no absolute proof that black holes exist.  You can’t place it in front of me and say “there it is”.  You can’t take me to one and show it to me.  All you have is deep space observations that clue you in to their existence.  Apply some math to that and you have a black hole.  My point is not whether black holes exist or not (I happen to think they do); my point is the same level of evidence that proves the existence of black holes is the same level of evidence that proves there is a God.  Short of actually give you the tangible, the rest relies on faith of their existence.



The fact that we've SEEM matter being sucked into a dark area of the universe isn't proof?  OK......since I'm not a cosmologist I cannot convince you if you need more than "we can see them".

OK, lets take something much simpler (that I know more about since I cannot 100% defend what I do not know more about ).  The square root of 4 is 2 right?  What is the square root of 3?  I can prove that it's irrational and absolutely no one can deny it as fact.  This is what I'm saying is missing from religion; you cannot prove religion but you can prove scientific law.



PsyOps said:


> My argument to these ‘laws’ is they are limited to what we know on this earth and some immediate celestial bodies in our solar system.  Can you really assume the math used to prove certain theories doesn’t change in other parts of space?  Is it possible that an object assumed to be 3 trillion light years away is only a few billion, but because of galactic distortions it gives the illusion that it’s 3 trillion light years away?  Scientists can’t even agree on whether space is infinite in every direction, if it bends on itself, or if it is only as big as the mass it contains.  Hawking aimed to tear the scientific community apart with his belief that matter was destroyed in a black hole, while others claimed he was wrong.  Eventually Hawking admitted he was wrong.  Well, how can any of them possibly know for sure?  No one can go to a black hole and prove it for sure.  All they have is limited observations and math learned on this earth that may not apply in other parts of the universe.  Neither here nor there, they believe they are right.  With everything they theorize, I can always say “you can’t prove it with absolute certainty”.



The laws DO work everywhere i.e. they work here and they work 1 trillion light years away.  The math DOES change depending on the size though.  Read about science's quest for a Grand Unifying Theory.  Math in VERY BIG science works differently from math in very small science.  The GUT looks to unify two theories that both have a lot of evidence.  BUT the laws of mathematics still hold.

And of course we don't know whether the Universe in infinite or finite; infinity is an extraordinarily difficult concept to grasp.  You can get in a spaceship and fly forever without EVER knowing whether the universe might not still end somewhere out there.  Any proof we might even dare hope for of this would be mathematical in nature.



PsyOps said:


> The same is true with God.  I am convinced my God exists.  I have experienced enough to convince me of this.  Just as math fills that void for theory, God fills that void that science cannot explain.  Obviously I’m not above believing there is a higher, more powerful being than us; that created all of this stuff we are trying to learn about.  There is too much order in our universe to chalk everything up to random chemical interactions to explain our existence.



I believe also (just differently) and I believe because of faith.  The difference is that I don't think I have proof of god.  I know it's faith and I don't really care if I'm wrong as long as I don't go to a hell type place for all eternity.  And I have faith that I wont (nor will you nor ANYONE else in here or ANYWHERE for that matter...I don't believe in hell either  )


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> Can you show an undeniable proof of the existence of the Christian God? Or of any of the miracles?  (and remember how inaccurate eyewitness testimony is in our courts of law)


The proof is all around you darling. YOU are proof; I am proof, every living thing is proof, the universe is proof... It would take more "faith" to deny or ignore it than it would to believe it. 

Aside from the Bible, there are people who wrote about Jesus, His teachings, His miracles and His rising from the dead but would you believe them? Prolly not; so what good would it do me to quote them for you? You seem very set on not believing in Him even though you say you believe in a higher power. I'm just trying to show you who that higher power is but you won't believe me. What "proof" would convince you (other than Him appearing in front of you)?


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> The fact that we've SEEM matter being sucked into a dark area of the universe isn't proof?  OK......since I'm not a cosmologist I cannot convince you if you need more than "we can see them".
> 
> OK, lets take something much simpler (that I know more about since I cannot 100% defend what I do not know more about ).  The square root of 4 is 2 right?  What is the square root of 3?  I can prove that it's irrational and absolutely no one can deny it as fact.  This is what I'm saying is missing from religion; you cannot prove religion but you can prove scientific law.



Do you have pictures or videos of these events?  I don’t think I’ve seen them, and I don’t recall anyone saying they’ve actually seen matter being sucked in to a black hole.  All I’ve ever seen and read about is celestial behavior that indicates there might be a black hole.  They see this behavior and they say “it’s a black hole”; then they give us all these artist’s depictions of what this black hole might look like.  Fact is, no one has actually seen one, therefore can’t prove this is what it really is.  And let me clarify (as I have before)… I don’t necessarily believe black holes don’t exist; I’m just using the same faulty logic that is used against religion: that if my God can’t be presented right in front of you, it must not exist.  If this God can’t be proven with some sort of science, it must not exist.  Both require a level of faith that the evidence that have been provided is enough to believe.

You can’t throw a provable fact into a discussion that is about things that are not yet proven and use it to say “see, if science can prove that the square root of 4 is 2, then they must have everything else right”.  First of all I could - and do - argue that math is not universal; in other words, you’re assuming the square root of 4 is 2 everywhere in the universe.  You can't prove this.



UNA said:


> The laws DO work everywhere i.e. they work here and they work 1 trillion light years away. The math DOES change depending on the size though. Read about science's quest for a Grand Unifying Theory. Math in VERY BIG science works differently from math in very small science. The GUT looks to unify two theories that both have a lot of evidence. BUT the laws of mathematics still hold.



You have far more faith in man’s knowledge than I do.  You have no way of proving that the math we use to understand things is universal.  



UNA said:


> And of course we don't know whether the Universe in infinite or finite; infinity is an extraordinarily difficult concept to grasp. You can get in a spaceship and fly forever without EVER knowing whether the universe might not still end somewhere out there. Any proof we might even dare hope for of this would be mathematical in nature.



Every time you say something can be proven with math, I can always say that proves nothing other than you are able to produce a complex equation that MAY explain it; but since you can’t actually produce it with eyewitness evidence, you can’t say it’s actually true. 

This is a rhetorical debate for me.  I think I’ve made it clear that I believe our science has many things right.  I’m not convinced things are equal or consistent across the universe; thus our math has it absolutely right.  We are so confined and limited to a miniscule chuck of our universe that I can always throw that shadow of doubt in; just like the anti-God crowd likes to do about belief in God.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> The proof is all around you darling. YOU are proof; I am proof, every living thing is proof, the universe is proof... It would take more "faith" to deny or ignore it than it would to believe it.



None if this is proof that God created anything, it's just proof that it has been created.  I can't show you flower and say I grew it, all you know is that it was grown.



ItalianScallion said:


> Aside from the Bible, there are people who wrote about Jesus, His teachings, His miracles and His rising from the dead but would you believe them? Prolly not; so what good would it do me to quote them for you? You seem very set on not believing in Him even though you say you believe in a higher power. I'm just trying to show you who that higher power is but you won't believe me. What "proof" would convince you (other than Him appearing in front of you)?



Like I said, I believe in God!  I just don't believe in the miracles.  I'm not looking for anyone to be able to prove anything because your right, God would have to come down here and say "I did all that" and even then I would probably head to the hospital!  I just like to talk about religion (I know, I'm very strange  ) and like I said before, I'm afraid that I come across as condecending or judgmental here because (even with emoticons) it's hard to convey genuine interest.

No hard feelings I hope!


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> Do you have pictures or videos of these events?  I don’t think I’ve seen them, and I don’t recall anyone saying they’ve actually seen matter being sucked in to a black hole.  All I’ve ever seen and read about is celestial behavior that indicates there might be a black hole.  They see this behavior and they say “it’s a black hole”; then they give us all these artist’s depictions of what this black hole might look like.  Fact is, no one has actually seen one, therefore can’t prove this is what it really is.



Light Echoes from Our Supermassive Black Hole

We have actually observed black holes.



PsyOps said:


> I’m just using the same faulty logic that is used against religion: that if my God can’t be presented right in front of you, it must not exist.



So are you saying your logic is faulty? 



PsyOps said:


> If this God can’t be proven with some sort of science, it must not exist.  Both require a level of faith that the evidence that have been provided is enough to believe.



I believe in God!!!!!  Just not that god created everything!  I believe in the order of the Universe; we may not understand it all yet, but that's the fun!



PsyOps said:


> You can’t throw a provable fact into a discussion that is about things that are not yet proven and use it to say “see, if science can prove that the square root of 4 is 2, then they must have everything else right”.  First of all I could - and do - argue that math is not universal; in other words, you’re assuming the square root of 4 is 2 everywhere in the universe.  You can't prove this.



I'm not, black holes are provable just like the square root of 4 being 2.  Just because we don't completely understand something doesn't mean we don't have proof that it exists.



PsyOps said:


> You have far more faith in man’s knowledge than I do.  You have no way of proving that the math we use to understand things is universal.



But I do, I can prove that the square root of 3 is irrational and absolutely no one can prove it wrong.  There is no counterexample so you can't prove it wrong.



PsyOps said:


> Every time you say something can be proven with math, I can always say that proves nothing other than you are able to produce a complex equation that MAY explain it; but since you can’t actually produce it with eyewitness evidence, you can’t say it’s actually true.



Observations and mathematics go hand in hand.  The point I'm trying to make here is that the fact that 1+1 always equals 2 is a fact.  There exists a proof.  It cannot be proven wrong.  God's miracles, however, cannot be proven right.  I'm not saying anyone here is wrong, just that there is no proof, only faith.  I have faith too, I have faith that a higher power exists.  I have faith in my husband loves me.  I have faith that if I work hard I will get ahead at work.  None of this can be proven though.



PsyOps said:


> This is a rhetorical debate for me.  I think I’ve made it clear that I believe our science has many things right.  I’m not convinced things are equal or consistent across the universe; thus our math has it absolutely right.  We are so confined and limited to a miniscule chuck of our universe that I can always throw that shadow of doubt in; just like the anti-God crowd likes to do about belief in God.



Math is universal; what changes is the applications.  The equations change but it's always there and it always follows the same rules.


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> None if this is proof that God created anything, it's just proof that it has been created.  I can't show you flower and say I grew it, all you know is that it was grown.


Ahhh but did you create the original? 


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Like I said, I believe in God!  I just don't believe in the miracles.  I'm not looking for anyone to be able to prove anything because your right, God would have to come down here and say "I did all that" and even then I would probably head to the hospital!  I just like to talk about religion (I know, I'm very strange  ) and like I said before, I'm afraid that I come across as condecending or judgmental here because (even with emoticons) it's hard to convey genuine interest.
> No hard feelings I hope!


MOI? Hard feelings??


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> Light Echoes from Our Supermassive Black Hole
> 
> We have actually observed black holes.



I want an actual video of a stellar object being sucked into a black hole.

I can show you a picture of a tree in a field.  You COULD question that the picture is doctored and the tree really isn’t there.  What I would have to do at this point is actually take you there so you can see it first hand, touch it, etc…  Until then, I only have minimal proof.  The article you provided proves nothing.  You claim this is photo evidence, but I can easily assert that the astronomer that took that photo doctored it up in order to convince people “See, a black hole”.  You simply BELIEVE they are telling you the truth.

I’m not doubting it as truth; I’m simply using the same argument the anti-God crowd uses as reason not to believe in God.  The bible was written by a bunch of fallible men.  Because of this, the bible is full of errors and can’t be trusted.  You can’t produce your God in any tangible way; you simply believe He is.  Same argument, different subjects.



UNA said:


> So are you saying your logic is faulty?



No, because I am not actually contending that black holes or other unproven scientific ‘facts’ are false simply because it lacks certain evidence.  The anti-God crowd uses this argument against God but ignore the fact that they trust the same level of evidence (or lack of) of things like the big bang, black holes, evolution…



UNA said:


> I'm not, black holes are provable just like the square root of 4 being 2. Just because we don't completely understand something doesn't mean we don't have proof that it exists.



Again, unless you can produce it to me, right in front of me or take me to it, I can always contend that you’re being deceived or the data is false.  Faith comes into play.  You believe it’s true because you’ve been given enough evidence.  The square root of 4 is tangible.  I can write it down and work it out.  This is not the case with black holes.  You have math and some deep space photos that claim what you’re observing is a black hole.



UNA said:


> But I do, I can prove that the square root of 3 is irrational and absolutely no one can prove it wrong. There is no counterexample so you can't prove it wrong.



But you can’t prove that this is the case somewhere else in the universe.  I’m not hear to prove you wrong; I’m simply giving you an argument to question the reality of what we apply here on earth to places in our universe it may not be true.



UNA said:


> Observations and mathematics go hand in hand. The point I'm trying to make here is that the fact that 1+1 always equals 2 is a fact. There exists a proof. It cannot be proven wrong. God's miracles, however, cannot be proven right. I'm not saying anyone here is wrong, just that there is no proof, only faith. I have faith too, I have faith that a higher power exists. I have faith in my husband loves me. I have faith that if I work hard I will get ahead at work. None of this can be proven though.



It’s a fact here on this earth.  Prove to me it’s a fact somewhere in the center of the crab nebula.  I can’t prove you're wrong in this case anymore than you prove yourself right; except that you accept the laws of math and physics are constant across the entire universe.  I don’t know if that is necessarily the case.



UNA said:


> Math is universal; what changes is the applications. The equations change but it's always there and it always follows the same rules.



You believe that.  You have faith in that.  There is not much in what separates your thinking from those that believe God created our universe in 6 days.

BTW… care to share who your god is?


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> ...Muslims are often questioned, "Did not Muhammad call on all Muslims to kill the infidels?" The answer is absolutely not!



Correct.  Muhammad did not call upon all Muslims to kill infidels; he called only upon those of "his warriors" to do so.  And for their efforts they get to partake in the share of the "booty."  The rest of the non-fighting Muslims are obligated to assist the warriors in all ways possible. As for those warriors who refuse to fight, Muhammad condemns them to the hell fire.



> Then, we are asked another question: "Why then does the Quran say, "fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?" (9:5).
> 
> There are two interrelated answers to that question. The first is historical. The second is related to the nature of the Quran itself."
> 
> And there are explanations far to long for this forum on the page as well.



Meanwhile, Iran's Shi'a leader calls for "wiping Israel off the map," and causing global chaos to expedite the appearance of al-Mahdi while Sunnis are planning to establish a Caliphate that will govern this world by Shari'a Law.  

Then you have both Shi'a and Sunni Muslims persecuting and killing Christians throughout the Middle East while still others are seen gathering to chant "Death to America!" 

Wonder why they aren't heeding the "peaceful ways" that you mention?


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Ahhh but did you create the original?



I give up LOL 

I'm not trying to disprove anything, just that faith in _any_ god is different from the proof that science takes.  The proof you have is only proof to those that have faith.  You cannot go to someone who has never heard of Christianity and prove to them that you have the right religion.  But you can go to them and teach them science, and prove things (not everything) but a lot of things.


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> I want an actual video of a stellar object being sucked into a black hole.
> 
> I can show you a picture of a tree in a field.  You COULD question that the picture is doctored and the tree really isn’t there.  What I would have to do at this point is actually take you there so you can see it first hand, touch it, etc…  Until then, I only have minimal proof.  The article you provided proves nothing.  You claim this is photo evidence, but I can easily assert that the astronomer that took that photo doctored it up in order to convince people “See, a black hole”.  You simply BELIEVE they are telling you the truth.
> 
> I’m not doubting it as truth; I’m simply using the same argument the anti-God crowd uses as reason not to believe in God.  The bible was written by a bunch of fallible men.  Because of this, the bible is full of errors and can’t be trusted.  You can’t produce your God in any tangible way; you simply believe He is.  Same argument, different subjects.
> 
> No, because I am not actually contending that black holes or other unproven scientific ‘facts’ are false simply because it lacks certain evidence.  The anti-God crowd uses this argument against God but ignore the fact that they trust the same level of evidence (or lack of) of things like the big bang, black holes, evolution…
> 
> Again, unless you can produce it to me, right in front of me or take me to it, I can always contend that you’re being deceived or the data is false.  Faith comes into play.  You believe it’s true because you’ve been given enough evidence.  The square root of 4 is tangible.  I can write it down and work it out.  This is not the case with black holes.  You have math and some deep space photos that claim what you’re observing is a black hole.
> 
> But you can’t prove that this is the case somewhere else in the universe.  I’m not hear to prove you wrong; I’m simply giving you an argument to question the reality of what we apply here on earth to places in our universe it may not be true.
> 
> It’s a fact here on this earth.  Prove to me it’s a fact somewhere in the center of the crab nebula.  I can’t prove you're wrong in this case anymore than you prove yourself right; except that you accept the laws of math and physics are constant across the entire universe.  I don’t know if that is necessarily the case.
> 
> You believe that.  You have faith in that.  There is not much in what separates your thinking from those that believe God created our universe in 6 days.



I can see that this isn't working.  Again, I'm not trying to prove you wrong; I'm simply trying to explain the difference between faith and facts.  You will ALWAYS be able to throw out the argument the a picture is faked or I suppose my professors lied to me.  That's why it's tough to discuss these things with people with your type of faith.  You can always say "yeah but you can't go to Pluto and prove it."  Of course I can't but you aren't proving that God works there either.  Math works here, I have the proof here and now while you have faith here and now.  One isn't necessarily better or more right than the other.  Just that proof is different from faith.  I suppose I do have faith that physicists aren't lying to me but do you question everything your peers say?  Just because they _could_ be lying?



PsyOps said:


> BTW… care to share who your god is?



Sure, but I don't have a book to 'prove' my god  I don't generally say god because it's often assumed to be Christian.  My _higher power_ is not a him nor a her but one higher power with both female and male manifestations.  My higher power is everywhere; in everyone of us, in the animals, plants, earth and water.  I'm happy to answer questions


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> Correct.  Muhammad did not call upon all Muslims to kill infidels; he called only upon those of "his warriors" to do so.  And for their efforts they get to partake in the share of the "booty."  The rest of the non-fighting Muslims are obligated to assist the warriors in all ways possible. As for those warriors who refuse to fight, Muhammad condemns them to the hell fire.
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, Iran's Shi'a leader calls for "wiping Israel off the map," and causing global chaos to expedite the appearance of al-Mahdi while Sunnis are planning to establish a Caliphate that will govern this world by Shari'a Law.
> 
> Then you have both Shi'a and Sunni Muslims persecuting and killing Christians throughout the Middle East while still others are seen gathering to chant "Death to America!"
> 
> Wonder why they aren't heeding the "peaceful ways" that you mention?



OK, how's this?  I know Muslims aren't inherently bad because I know Muslims and they're never tried to kill anyone.  But apparently you don't care about real Muslims, you just want to believe that you are better than them.  Just an FYI, even in Christian beliefs you don't get points for judging people.


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> OK, how's this?  I know Muslims aren't inherently bad because I know Muslims and they're never tried to kill anyone.  But apparently you don't care about real Muslims, you just want to believe that you are better than them.  Just an FYI, even in Christian beliefs you don't get points for judging people.



In Christian beliefs, we are to point people to find True Peace and Salvation through placing faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, and to warn them of false teachings that have led them astray from God's Truth.

Islam teaches Muslims that Muhammad (not Jesus) is the last and final prophet sent to mankind and that they are to follow his instructions.

BTW: Muslims are taught that their religion is the superior one over all others.

Paradise is found "Under the Shades of Swords." 
(Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 210, Narrated Salim Abu An-Nadr) 

"Allah's Apostle said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any amongst the Prophets before me. These are: 
1. Allah made me victorious by awe (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. 
2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum. Therefore my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due. 
3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me (and was not made so for anyone else). 
4. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I have been sent to all mankind. 
5. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection.) "
(Sahih Bukhari: Volume 1, Book 8, Number 429, Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah


Deny this all you want, UNA, but the fact will always remain: 
*There Is Only One Truth* (John 14:6)


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> BTW: Muslims are taught that their religion is the superior one over all others..



Isn't that what you're trying to say about Christianity.....



Starman3000m said:


> Deny this all you want, UNA, but the fact will always remain:
> *There Is Only One Truth* (John 14:6)



....by saying that^?

You are everything that is wrong with organized religion.  I might not agree with the other people post on this thread, and they may not agree with me but I have great respect for them as [I hope  ] they respect me.  You are why people gravitate away from organized religion.  I am sad for you, you are a very judgmental person and what goes around comes around.  One day you will realize how dangerous YOU'RE judgmental nature is.  This is the exact type of rhetoric your "evil" Muslims use to justify Jihad.  If all Muslims were like you say, all non-Muslims would be dead or converted by now, THERE ARE MORE OF THEM THAN CHRISTIANS!!!  I hope that one day you will have to rely on a Muslim to save your life one day, I would find that funny


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> Isn't that what you're trying to say about Christianity.....
> 
> 
> 
> ....by saying that^?
> 
> You are everything that is wrong with organized religion.  I might not agree with the other people post on this thread, and they may not agree with me but I have great respect for them as [I hope  ] they respect me.  You are why people gravitate away from organized religion.  I am sad for you, you are a very judgmental person and what goes around comes around.  One day you will realize how dangerous YOU'RE judgmental nature is.  This is the exact type of rhetoric your "evil" Muslims use to justify Jihad.  If all Muslims were like you say, all non-Muslims would be dead or converted by now, THERE ARE MORE OF THEM THAN CHRISTIANS!!!  I hope that one day you will have to rely on a Muslim to save your life one day, I would find that funny



Sorry you feel that way, Una, but your contention is not really with me; it's with Jesus Christ, the Son of The Living God.  He is the One who has  proclaimed being the Way, *The Truth*, and the Life and that no one can come unto God, the Father, except through Him. (John 14:6)

BTW: Jesus came to save your life Una:


> Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? (John 11:25-26)



This is the message that followers of Christ are to let others know.  Plain and Simple. I am not forcing you to believe it, I'm just placing Christ's Message of His Deity and Authority before you and then it's up to you to learn more about Him or choose to reject Him.  I know you say that you believe in God, but if Jesus was actually God in human form when He appeared, wouldn't you want to know?


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> Sorry you feel that way, Una, but your contention is not really with me; it's with Jesus Christ, the Son of The Living God.



I do not have a problem with Jesus and I resent you for saying that.  Jesus was a cool and groovy dude  no matter how you look at it.  My problem is with your hypocrisy and intolerance.



Starman3000m said:


> ... I'm just placing Christ's Message of His Deity and Authority before you...



No, you inserted your bigoted views as well.  Son of God or not, I believe whole heartedly that Jesus would not approve of your overt prejudice.  I don't know about your 'god' but mine is a truly loving and forgiving entity.  If your belief structure is really _the truth_ then I'm glad I'm not going to your Heaven, I don't want to spend eternity with people like you.


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> I give up LOL   I'm not trying to disprove anything, just that faith in _any_ god is different from the proof that science takes.  The proof you have is only proof to those that have faith.  You cannot go to someone who has never heard of Christianity and prove to them that you have the right religion.  But you can go to them and teach them science, and prove things (not everything) but a lot of things.


Give up? You're a cheap date.  

Science agrees with the Bible in many places. Mainly archaeology and not to mention your field: math (statistical probability). The more they dig, the more they find things the Bible has talked about for thousands of years. The more they prove the Bible right, the more they'll want to believe it. That's my goal for people.....and my new friend UNA...

Actually I "can go to someone who has never heard of Christianity and prove to them that I have the right religion" because of the power of God. He prepares their hearts & minds to be receptive to the truth. It happens everyday; It's called missionary work. 


UNA said:


> OK, how's this?  I know Muslims aren't inherently bad because I know Muslims and they're never tried to kill anyone.


The question again is this: What would they do if they had to make a choice? Would they die for their freedom in America or follow the hatred on the side of Islam? Obama said he'd side with Islam...


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> I can see that this isn't working.  Again, I'm not trying to prove you wrong; I'm simply trying to explain the difference between faith and facts.  You will ALWAYS be able to throw out the argument the a picture is faked or I suppose my professors lied to me.  That's why it's tough to discuss these things with people with your type of faith.  You can always say "yeah but you can't go to Pluto and prove it."  Of course I can't but you aren't proving that God works there either.  Math works here, I have the proof here and now while you have faith here and now.  One isn't necessarily better or more right than the other.  Just that proof is different from faith.  I suppose I do have faith that physicists aren't lying to me but do you question everything your peers say?  Just because they _could_ be lying?



What exactly are you trying to make work?

I know you’re not trying to prove me wrong.  We’re having a discussion about how we come to believe certain things that can have doubt cast on them.  I’m trying to show that the same arguments the anti-God crowd (which I know you’re not a part of) use to prove there are not gods can be used to show some of what they believe are equally fabricated myths by man.  You happen to believe the math we use are factual beyond doubt.  You believe the analysis science uses when they observe deep space objects is unequivocal; I can cast doubt on that on several different levels.  Unless I believe something as fact, I do question what my peers say and verify it against sourves that I have.  If a fellow Christian states something that I feel is not biblically factual, I will research it and point it out.  It's our responsibility as humans to not just swallow everything as true; but to question it and seek the truth - as best we know it.  Otherwise we'd still believe the world is flat.

And what exactly is my “type of faith”?  I’ve already told you that I’m not an absolutist in my interpretation of the bible.  I’ve also told you that I don’t necessarily doubt the things you are asserting; I’m just giving you the same argument (in a rhetorical way) that gets thrown at Christians time and time again when demanded to prove the existence of my God.  Just as I can’t prove my God exists with irrefutable evidence, you can’t prove things like evolution, the big bang, black holes, etc… exist(ed) with the same measure.  

My point is, that we all rely on faith that what we believe is right.  Although we have certain levels of evidence to convince us that we are right, the burden is providing absolute convincing evidence.  But it’s enough for you that observations through a telescope of objects billions of light years away, accompanied with some nifty math, black holes do exist.  I happen to believe what you’re really seeing is the Flying Spaghetti Monster god. 



UNA said:


> Sure, but I don't have a book to 'prove' my god  I don't generally say god because it's often assumed to be Christian.  My _higher power_ is not a him nor a her but one higher power with both female and male manifestations.  My higher power is everywhere; in everyone of us, in the animals, plants, earth and water.  I'm happy to answer questions



What is the name of your god?  If not documented in a book of eyewitnesses, what is the source of your evidence that this god exists?


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> OK, how's this?  I know Muslims aren't inherently bad because I know Muslims and they're never tried to kill anyone.  But apparently you don't care about real Muslims, you just want to believe that you are better than them.  Just an FYI, even in Christian beliefs you don't get points for judging people.



Have you had discussions with these Muslims and asked them how they feel about our country (a country overwhelmingly made up of Christians) invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya?

Have you asked them what they think about the anti-American protests in these countries with signs stating "Death to America" and burning effigies of our leaders?

Have you asked them what they think about the situation between the Israelis Palestinians?

Have you asked them what they think about the Christian religion?  Ask them what should be done about it?  

Have you asked them their thoughts on Shria?


----------



## 2ndAmendment

Observation: UNA must be lonely or have lots of time with nothing to do.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Science agrees with the Bible in many places. Mainly archaeology and not to mention your field: math (statistical probability). The more they dig, the more they find things the Bible has talked about for thousands of years. The more they prove the Bible right, the more they'll want to believe it. That's my goal for people.....and my new friend UNA...





I know there is a TON of archeological evidence confirming many events in the Bible, I love the documentaries on Discovery/History about that!  But where is the math in the Bible?  Are you talking about the Bible Code?



ItalianScallion said:


> The question again is this: What would they do if they had to make a choice? Would they die for their freedom in America or follow the hatred on the side of Islam? Obama said he'd side with Islam...



I don't generally quiz people when I meet them.  But since plenty of them fight in OUR military I don't think its really an issue.  I don't jump on someone from Italians about whether they're in the Mafia, I don't quiz the Irish on their drinking/righting...


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> What exactly are you trying to make work?
> 
> I know you’re not trying to prove me wrong.  We’re having a discussion about how we come to believe certain things that can have doubt cast on them.  I’m trying to show that the same arguments the anti-God crowd (which I know you’re not a part of) use to prove there are not gods can be used to show some of what they believe are equally fabricated myths by man.  You happen to believe the math we use are factual beyond doubt.  You believe the analysis science uses when they observe deep space objects is unequivocal; I can cast doubt on that on several different levels.  Unless I believe something as fact, I do question what my peers say and verify it against sourves that I have.  If a fellow Christian states something that I feel is not biblically factual, I will research it and point it out.  It's our responsibility as humans to not just swallow everything as true; but to question it and seek the truth - as best we know it.  Otherwise we'd still believe the world is flat.



I believe what I can see, I can see math and science.  There are definitely many, many things we don't know yet; but no one is trying to present them as facts.  I'm only trying to explain the different between tangible facts and faith. 



PsyOps said:


> And what exactly is my “type of faith”?  I’ve already told you that I’m not an absolutist in my interpretation of the bible.  I’ve also told you that I don’t necessarily doubt the things you are asserting; I’m just giving you the same argument (in a rhetorical way) that gets thrown at Christians time and time again when demanded to prove the existence of my God.  Just as I can’t prove my God exists with irrefutable evidence, you can’t prove things like evolution, the big bang, black holes, etc… exist(ed) with the same measure.



I didn't mean that how it sounded  I just meant Christianity in general.  sorry! 



PsyOps said:


> I happen to believe what you’re really seeing is the Flying Spaghetti Monster god.





I can see it sucking stuff in, that's enough for me!



PsyOps said:


> What is the name of your god?  If not documented in a book of eyewitnesses, what is the source of your evidence that this god exists?



No name, call it whatever you want! 

I recognize that what I have is faith.  But I'm not trying to say that I have proof of my higher power.  I don't care if you don't believe the same as me!


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> Have you had discussions with these Muslims and asked them how they feel about our country (a country overwhelmingly made up of Christians) invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya?
> 
> Have you asked them what they think about the anti-American protests in these countries with signs stating "Death to America" and burning effigies of our leaders?
> 
> Have you asked them what they think about the situation between the Israelis Palestinians?
> 
> Have you asked them what they think about the Christian religion?  Ask them what should be done about it?
> 
> Have you asked them their thoughts on Shria?



For the sake of being fair: "I don't generally quiz people when I meet them. But since plenty of them fight in OUR military I don't think its really an issue. I don't jump on someone from Italians about whether they're in the Mafia, I don't quiz the Irish on their drinking/righting..."

I don't assume things about people just because they look a certain way nor because they believe in a different imaginary friend in the sky (kidding)


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Observation: UNA must be lonely or have lots of time with nothing to do.



Thanks!  That is really grown up of you!

Did I offend you or something?


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> For the sake of being fair: "I don't generally quiz people when I meet them. But since plenty of them fight in OUR military I don't think its really an issue. I don't jump on someone from Italians about whether they're in the Mafia, I don't quiz the Irish on their drinking/righting..."
> 
> I don't assume things about people just because they look a certain way nor because they believe in a different imaginary friend in the sky (kidding)



I wasn't asking you to make assumption about anyone.  I was asking if you've ever asked any of your Muslim acquaintances any of these questions.  Instead of making assumptions, this would force you to come to factual conclusions.


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> I don't care if you don't believe the same as me!



I'm not criticizing your choice.  I'm just trying to understand it.


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> I know there is a TON of archeological evidence confirming many events in the Bible, I love the documentaries on Discovery/History about that!  But where is the math in the Bible?  Are you talking about the Bible Code?


No, there is no Bible code. People can say things that look like there is but no "numerical code" was ever intended.

The math comes from what is called "statistical probability". What are the odds that the Bible prophesies could be predicted soo far in advance & then fulfilled in exact detail and what are the odds that the 40 authors, from many different parts of the world, speaking different languages and over a 1600 year period could come up with the same basic message of the Bible? The odds are astronomical, which proves without a doubt that there had to be divine intervention involved. If that Deity did that, then we can easily believe what the rest of the Book says about Him. 


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> I don't generally quiz people when I meet them.  But since plenty of them fight in OUR military I don't think its really an issue.  I don't jump on someone from Italians about whether they're in the Mafia, I don't quiz the Irish on their drinking/righting...


You really should quiz those Italians though...


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> I wasn't asking you to make assumption about anyone.  I was asking if you've ever asked any of your Muslim acquaintances any of these questions.  Instead of making assumptions, this would force you to come to factual conclusions.



Like I said, I don't quiz people when I meet them. I'm not close enough to pry like that. All I was doing was saying that I've met Muslims that aren't extremists. There are nut in EVERY group. And remember, there are Muslims serving in our military, defending our freedoms.


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> I'm not criticizing your choice.  I'm just trying to understand it.



I know, I was just making sure you knew that! 

I know that many non-mainstream religious people tend to get just as judgmental as they assume Christians to be!


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> Like I said, I don't quiz people when I meet them. I'm not close enough to pry like that. All I was doing was saying that I've met Muslims that aren't extremists. There are nut in EVERY group. And remember, *there are Muslims serving in our military, defending our freedoms*.


Some even make it to the rank of Major.....................Hasaan 
Maybe you should start "getting close enough to pry like that"...


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> No, there is no Bible code. People can say things that look like there is but no "numerical code" was ever intended.



Phew!



ItalianScallion said:


> The math comes from what is called "statistical probability". What are the odds that the Bible prophesies could be predicted soo far in advance & then fulfilled in exact detail and what are the odds that the 40 authors, from many different parts of the world, speaking different languages and over a 1600 year period could come up with the same basic message of the Bible? The odds are astronomical, which proves without a doubt that there had to be divine intervention involved. If that Deity did that, then we can easily believe what the rest of the Book says about Him.



This is the FIRST decent argument for 'math' in the Bible I've heard!  OK, what I suppose would be at least one of the bigger Bible prophecies is the birth of Jesus.  The OT predicts the birth of the son of God right?  What are the earliest writings we have of this prediction?



ItalianScallion said:


> You really should quiz those Italians though...



Srsly


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Some even make it to the rank of Major.....................Hasaan
> Maybe you should start "getting close enough to pry like that"...



I'm not in the business of judging people...this is one of my most important rules.  I've been judged my whole life, I'm too young so I must lack life experience and be lazy, I'm a woman so I must want kids and I'm only interested in fashion, I'm blonde so I must be dumb and a slut, I'm weird because I like hockey and have opinions about politics and science, I'm Irish so I must have a drinking problem..........people judge others because they fear what is different.  To quote a wise little green dude; "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering" just a movie but good words to live by!


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> This is the FIRST decent argument for 'math' in the Bible I've heard!  OK, what I suppose would be at least one of the bigger Bible prophecies is the birth of Jesus.  The OT predicts the birth of the son of God right?  What are the earliest writings we have of this prediction?


Actually Moses wrote about Jesus in the first 5 books of the Bible (which the Jews also read). The first prophesy I know of is Genesis 3 v 15. There might be other external ones that I don't know of though. Here are most of them with their fulfillment:

Be the seed of a woman who would bruise the head of the serpent 
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Gen 3:15
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Gal 4:4, 1Jn 3:8 
Be descendant of Abraham 
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Gen 12:3
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 1:1, Acts 3:25, Acts 18:18, Acts 22:18, Gal 3:16
Be descendant of Isaac
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Gen 17:19, Gen 21:12
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 1:2, Luke 3:34, Heb 11:17-19
Be descendant of Jacob
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Gen 28:14, Num 24:17, Num 19
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 1:2, Luke 3:24, Rev 22:16
Be descendant from the tribe of Judah
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Gen 49:10
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Luke 3:33, Matt 1:2-3, Heb 7:14
Be descendant of David and heir to his throne
Prophecy in the Old Testament: 2Sa 7:12-13, Isa 9:6-7, Isa 11:1-5, Jer 23:5
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 1:1,6, Luke 1:32, Acts 11:23, Rom 1:4
Be anointed and eternal
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 45:6-7, Ps 102:25-27, Mic 5:1-2
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Heb 1:8-12, John 8:58, John 11:14, Eph 1:3-14, Col 1:15-19, Rev 5:11
Be anointed with the Spirit of God
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 11:2, Isa 61:1, Ps 45:7-8
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 3:16
Be born in Bethlehem
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Mic 5:1-2
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 2:1, Luke 2:4-7
Be born at a specific time
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Dan 9:25
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Luke 2:1-2
Be born of a virgin
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 7:14
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 1:18, 2:1, Luke 1:26-27, Luke 1:30-35
Slaughter of children
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Jer 31:15
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 2:16-18
Flight to Egypt
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Hos 11:1
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 2:14-15
The way prepared
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 40:3-5
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Luke 3:3-6
Messiah Preceded by a forerunner
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Mal 3:1
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Luke 7:24,27
Messiah Preceded by Elijah
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Mal 4:5-6
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 11:13-14
Messiah Declared the Son of God
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 2:7, Prov 30:4
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 3:17, Luke 1:32
Would have a ministry in healing
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 35:5-6, Isa 42:18
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 11:5 and many healings in all the gospel accounts 
Galilean ministry
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 8:22-9:1-2, Isa 9:1-2
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 4:12-16
Speaks in parables
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 78:2-4
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 13:34-35
Be a prophet
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Deut 18:15, Deut 18
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Acts 3:20,22
Have God's own name applied to him
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 9:5-7, Jer 23:5-6
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Rom 10:9, Phil 2:9-11
To bind up the brokenhearted
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 61:1-2
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Luke 4:18-19
Rejected by His own people, the Jews
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 53:3, Isa 63:3, Ps 69:8-9
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Mark 6:3, Luke 23:18, John 1:11, John 7:3-5
Be adored by great persons
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 72:10-11
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 2:1-11
Priest after order of Melchizedek
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 110:4
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Heb 5:5-6
Triumphal entry into Jerusalem 
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Zech 9:9
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Mark 11:7,9,11
Adored by infants
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 8:2
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 21:15-16
Not believed
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 53:1
Fulfillment in the New Testament: John 12:37-38
Betrayed by a close friend
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 41:9, Ps 55:12-15
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 26:21-25, Matt 26:47-50, Luke 22:47-48, John 13:18-21, Acts 1:16-18
Betrayed for30 pieces of silver
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Zech 11:12
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 26:14-15
Accused by false witnesses
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 35:11
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Mark 14:57-58
Silent to accusations
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 53:7
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Mark 15:4-5
Spat on and struck
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 50:6
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 26:67, Matt 27:26,30
Hated without cause
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 49:7, Ps 35:19, Ps 69:4-5
Fulfillment in the New Testament: John 7:48, John 15:24-25
Vicarious sacrifice
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 53:5
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Rom. 5:6,8 
Crucified with criminals
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 53:12
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Mark 15:27,28
Pierced through hands and feet
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 22:16-17, Zech 12:10
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 17:35, Luke 24:39. John 19:18&34-37, John 20:27,35, Rev 1:7
Sneered and mocked
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 22:7-8
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 27:31 & 39-44, Mark 15:29-32, Luke 23:35
Was reproached
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 69:9
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Rom. 15:3
Prayed for enemies 
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 109:4
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Luke 23:34
Gambled for His clothing
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 22:17-18
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 27:35-36
Forsaken by God
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 22:1
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 27:46
No bones broken
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ex 12:46, Ps 34:20
Fulfillment in the New Testament: John 19:32-36
His side pierced
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Zech 12:10
Fulfillment in the New Testament: John 19:34
Buried with the rich
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 53:9
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 27:57-60
To be resurrected
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 16:10, Ps 49:15
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Mark 16:6-7
His ascension to God's right hand
Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 16:11, Ps 68:18, Ps 110:1
Fulfillment in the New Testament: Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9-11, 7:55, 1Cor 15:4, Eph 4:8


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Actually Moses wrote about Jesus in the first 5 books of the Bible (which the Jews also read). The first prophesy I know of is Genesis 3 v 15. There might be other external ones that I don't know of though. Here are most of them with their fulfillment:
> 
> Be the seed of a woman who would bruise the head of the serpent
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Gen 3:15
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Gal 4:4, 1Jn 3:8
> Be descendant of Abraham
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Gen 12:3
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 1:1, Acts 3:25, Acts 18:18, Acts 22:18, Gal 3:16
> Be descendant of Isaac
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Gen 17:19, Gen 21:12
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 1:2, Luke 3:34, Heb 11:17-19
> Be descendant of Jacob
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Gen 28:14, Num 24:17, Num 19
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 1:2, Luke 3:24, Rev 22:16
> Be descendant from the tribe of Judah
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Gen 49:10
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Luke 3:33, Matt 1:2-3, Heb 7:14
> Be descendant of David and heir to his throne
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: 2Sa 7:12-13, Isa 9:6-7, Isa 11:1-5, Jer 23:5
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 1:1,6, Luke 1:32, Acts 11:23, Rom 1:4
> Be anointed and eternal
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 45:6-7, Ps 102:25-27, Mic 5:1-2
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Heb 1:8-12, John 8:58, John 11:14, Eph 1:3-14, Col 1:15-19, Rev 5:11
> Be anointed with the Spirit of God
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 11:2, Isa 61:1, Ps 45:7-8
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 3:16
> Be born in Bethlehem
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Mic 5:1-2
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 2:1, Luke 2:4-7
> Be born at a specific time
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Dan 9:25
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Luke 2:1-2
> Be born of a virgin
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 7:14
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 1:18, 2:1, Luke 1:26-27, Luke 1:30-35
> Slaughter of children
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Jer 31:15
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 2:16-18
> Flight to Egypt
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Hos 11:1
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 2:14-15
> The way prepared
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 40:3-5
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Luke 3:3-6
> Messiah Preceded by a forerunner
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Mal 3:1
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Luke 7:24,27
> Messiah Preceded by Elijah
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Mal 4:5-6
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 11:13-14
> Messiah Declared the Son of God
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 2:7, Prov 30:4
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 3:17, Luke 1:32
> Would have a ministry in healing
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 35:5-6, Isa 42:18
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 11:5 and many healings in all the gospel accounts
> Galilean ministry
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 8:22-9:1-2, Isa 9:1-2
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 4:12-16
> Speaks in parables
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 78:2-4
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 13:34-35
> Be a prophet
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Deut 18:15, Deut 18
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Acts 3:20,22
> Have God's own name applied to him
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 9:5-7, Jer 23:5-6
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Rom 10:9, Phil 2:9-11
> To bind up the brokenhearted
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 61:1-2
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Luke 4:18-19
> Rejected by His own people, the Jews
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 53:3, Isa 63:3, Ps 69:8-9
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Mark 6:3, Luke 23:18, John 1:11, John 7:3-5
> Be adored by great persons
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 72:10-11
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 2:1-11
> Priest after order of Melchizedek
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 110:4
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Heb 5:5-6
> Triumphal entry into Jerusalem
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Zech 9:9
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Mark 11:7,9,11
> Adored by infants
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 8:2
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 21:15-16
> Not believed
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 53:1
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: John 12:37-38
> Betrayed by a close friend
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 41:9, Ps 55:12-15
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 26:21-25, Matt 26:47-50, Luke 22:47-48, John 13:18-21, Acts 1:16-18
> Betrayed for30 pieces of silver
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Zech 11:12
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 26:14-15
> Accused by false witnesses
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 35:11
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Mark 14:57-58
> Silent to accusations
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 53:7
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Mark 15:4-5
> Spat on and struck
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 50:6
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 26:67, Matt 27:26,30
> Hated without cause
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 49:7, Ps 35:19, Ps 69:4-5
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: John 7:48, John 15:24-25
> Vicarious sacrifice
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 53:5
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Rom. 5:6,8
> Crucified with criminals
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 53:12
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Mark 15:27,28
> Pierced through hands and feet
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 22:16-17, Zech 12:10
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 17:35, Luke 24:39. John 19:18&34-37, John 20:27,35, Rev 1:7
> Sneered and mocked
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 22:7-8
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 27:31 & 39-44, Mark 15:29-32, Luke 23:35
> Was reproached
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 69:9
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Rom. 15:3
> Prayed for enemies
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 109:4
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Luke 23:34
> Gambled for His clothing
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 22:17-18
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 27:35-36
> Forsaken by God
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 22:1
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 27:46
> No bones broken
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ex 12:46, Ps 34:20
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: John 19:32-36
> His side pierced
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Zech 12:10
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: John 19:34
> Buried with the rich
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Isa 53:9
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Matt 27:57-60
> To be resurrected
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 16:10, Ps 49:15
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Mark 16:6-7
> His ascension to God's right hand
> Prophecy in the Old Testament: Ps 16:11, Ps 68:18, Ps 110:1
> Fulfillment in the New Testament: Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9-11, 7:55, 1Cor 15:4, Eph 4:8



No, I meant like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the actual writings.  Because those could be the undeniable facts!


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> I'm not in the business of judging people...this is one of my most important rules.  I've been judged my whole life, I'm too young so I must lack life experience and be lazy, I'm a woman so I must want kids and I'm only interested in fashion, I'm blonde so I must be dumb and a slut, I'm weird because I like hockey and have opinions about politics and science, I'm Irish so I must have a drinking problem..........people judge others because they fear what is different.


That's more like stereotyping. I'm Italian, so I'm assumed to have MAFIA roots. I didn't get upset; I just gave them a free pair of shoes; Cement ones.


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> No, I meant like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the actual writings.  Because those could be the undeniable facts!


Geezz my dear, you didn't have to requote the entire post.  
The Dead Sea scrolls are virtually exact copies of many of the OT books. If you've seen the Dead Sea Scroll writings, you've seen many of the OT writings. The Dead Sea Scrolls are just copies of the OT writings, BUT they are copies that were written much earlier (almost 1,000 years earlier) than the oldest copies they had.

I gave you wayyy more than you asked for in the prophesies fulfilled by Jesus. You asked for the prophesies about His birth and they are included. Mostly in Isaiah which was written 700 years before Christ was born. And copies of Isaiah were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Enjoy!


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Geezz my dear, you didn't have to requote the entire post.



Yeah, I realized that after I'd done it 



ItalianScallion said:


> The Dead Sea scrolls are virtually exact copies of many of the OT books. If you've seen the Dead Sea Scroll writings, you've seen many of the OT writings. The Dead Sea Scrolls are just copies of the OT writings, BUT they are copies that were written much earlier (almost 1,000 years earlier) than the oldest copies they had.
> 
> I gave you wayyy more than you asked for in the prophesies fulfilled by Jesus. You asked for the prophesies about His birth and they are included. Mostly in Isaiah which was written 700 years before Christ was born. And copies of Isaiah were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Enjoy!



OK, so the Dead Sea Scrolls have the prophecies of Jesus in them AND they were written before Jesus was born (I mean actually written down on that paper, not copied later from things that were said before...)?  Well that sounds pretty good to me! 

-------------------------

My husband and I went to visit the Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot when they were in DC.  Very interesting!  

Another thing I've always wondered about (if you don't mind  ) is how the Council of Nicaea went about deciding what to include from the Bible and what to exclude.  I know one of the major factors was to not include a bunch of books that just told the same story but what about the other things they didn't include?  These excluded books are called the Apocrypha right?  Do parts of the Apocrypha contradict Scripture?


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> That's more like stereotyping. I'm Italian, so I'm assumed to have MAFIA roots. I didn't get upset; I just gave them a free pair of shoes; Cement ones.



Hahaha

I just found something kind of interesting; the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "judge" as a verb to mean "to form an estimate or evaluation of" and "stereotype" as a verb to mean "to repeat without variation".  Hmmmm, not what I though stereotype meant! 

Either way, I don't like to do either


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Thanks!  That is really grown up of you!
> 
> Did I offend you or something?



I do not find you offensive. Although this last comment was rather snarky. 

My comment says exactly what it says. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands that you choose to spend with people you do not know discussing a faith in which you do not believe.

I also find it incredible that you would spend so much time discussing a topic that you already seem to have all your opinions firmly rooted. I find discussion is either carried on by people of like mind or,  when, by those of differing opinions, it is usually for the purpose of trying to change opinions. You say you are not looking to have your opinion changed nor are you desiring to change others' opinions. So all this back and forth seems rather fruitless, but to each their own.

I leave you and those responding to you to your prattle.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> I do not find you offensive. Although this last comment was rather snarky.



"Snarky" comments beget "snarky" comments



2ndAmendment said:


> My comment says exactly what it says. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands that you choose to spend with people you do not know discussing a faith in which you do not believe.



How come you don't feel that other participant have too much time on their hands?  I'm not the only one in here.

At least I don't have time to insert myself into threads just to point out that I think they have too much time on their hands 



2ndAmendment said:


> I also find it incredible that you would spend so much time discussing a topic that you already seem to have all your opinions firmly rooted. I find discussion is either carried on by people of like mind or,  when, by those of differing opinions, it is usually for the purpose of trying to change opinions. You say you are not looking to have your opinion changed nor are you desiring to change others' opinions. So all this back and forth seems rather fruitless, but to each their own.
> 
> I leave you and those responding to you to your prattle.



You don't have a desire to learn about things?  I was raised Episcopal and have never really had the opportunity to ask these questions.  I figured a forum like this would be a good place to do it!  Anninimity allows me to have this discussion with Christians without _actually_ being judged.  UNA is being judged (by some here) not ME!

As soon as a Jew or Muslim joins I'll have questions for them too!  We fear what we don't understand therefor understanding leads to acceptance.  Goes back to that whole 'judging' thing in previous posts.

No one in forcing you to read this and you have a right to not like the discussion.  So ignore it  note how I'm not participating in threads that I don't like (unless I really am trying to change people's opinions  )

Thank you for taking time out of your busy day to insult me!  Bye now!


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> OK, so the Dead Sea Scrolls have the prophecies of Jesus in them AND they were written before Jesus was born (I mean actually written down on that paper, not copied later from things that were said before...)?  Well that sounds pretty good to me!   My husband and I went to visit the Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot when they were in DC.  Very interesting!


Yes they do, since they were copied a thousand years before the oldest available copies of Scripture. You have to understand that the original documents could not withstand the rigors of time so they had to be copied. Remember, they were written on animal skins and later papyrus (plant leaves) for a long time. The good news is that there are over 8,000 copies of old & new testament writings so there is NO problem reconstructing the original writings/meanings from them. Btw, don't be concerned about copying errors because the copyists were meticulous in their methods. One mistake and they started over with a new sheet. Every letter & word was counted and the middle letter was determined to ensure full accuracy. Something like computer "parity bits" today.

Isaiah 7, 9, 52 & 53 prophesied (actually God told him) about Christ's birth some 700 years before it happened and also about His suffering and death on the cross. Now honestly, who could make such a prediction with that exact detail, that far in advance? See? 

The Gospel of Judas was proven to have NOT been written by Judas. There was a lot of hype over it when it was found, but that died off after examining it for authenticity.


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Another thing I've always wondered about (if you don't mind  ) is how the Council of Nicaea went about deciding what to include from the Bible and what to exclude.  I know one of the major factors was to not include a bunch of books that just told the same story but what about the other things they didn't include?  These excluded books are called the Apocrypha right?  Do parts of the Apocrypha contradict Scripture?


All Scripture writings must agree with each other or they could not be included in the Bible (The 66 Canonical books: 39 OT & 27 NT). The compilers of the Bible also had to be in agreement and be listening to the Holy Spirit of God for their guidance. 

The Apocryphal books all fail in one or more areas, so the "Canon" was considered closed forever with 66 books. The Hebrew Canon of 39 OT writings was accepted by most folks but, later, the RCC (Council of Trent & 1st Vatican Council) decided to include some Apocryphal books in their "Bible" (hence the many Catholic Church contradictions with the Bible today). 

There are no major truths in the Apocryphal books that aren't found in the 39 OT Bible books, so there is really no need of them. Unfortunately, there are some major contradictions in the Apocrypha that have lead people away from the truth, so they should be avoided except for general reading. 


UNA said:


> Hahaha
> I just found something kind of interesting; the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "judge" as a verb to mean "to form an estimate or evaluation of" and "stereotype" as a verb to mean "to repeat without variation".  Hmmmm, not what I though stereotype meant!  Either way, I don't like to do either


If I said you were dumb because you are a blonde, that would be stereotyping you and ALL blondes. Since I have found one blonde with some sense, I can't stereotype them all. I guess it could be called judging too...

If you live in So Md, I'd love to meet you some Sunday and we can talk more about these things. Red Robin, California, 11:30-1:30...


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Yes they do, since they were copied a thousand years before the oldest available copies of Scripture. You have to understand that the original documents could not withstand the rigors of time so they had to be copied. Remember, they were written on animal skins and later papyrus (plant leaves) for a long time. The good news is that there are over 8,000 copies of old & new testament writings so there is NO problem reconstructing the original writings/meanings from them. Btw, don't be concerned about copying errors because the copyists were meticulous in their methods. One mistake and they started over with a new sheet. Every letter & word was counted and the middle letter was determined to ensure full accuracy. Something like computer "parity bits" today.



A lot of ancient documents survive, especially in the desert.  So if there _are_ ancient writings about the Son of God, written in [say] 1000 BC then that would indeed be a prophecy!  However, if there is no proof that anyone said/wrote about it until [say] 50 AD, then there are some questions.  Not saying either way.  So which Scrolls predict Jesus? (since they date from 150 BC through 70 AD)



ItalianScallion said:


> Isaiah 7, 9, 52 & 53 prophesied (actually God told him) about Christ's birth some 700 years before it happened and also about His suffering and death on the cross. Now honestly, who could make such a prediction with that exact detail, that far in advance? See?



Well, I don't believe in the ability to predict the future (i.e. psychics) the I suppose the only way to do it would be through Devine Intervention!



ItalianScallion said:


> The Gospel of Judas was proven to have NOT been written by Judas. There was a lot of hype over it when it was found, but that died off after examining it for authenticity.



Oh, I didn't know that.  I just like history and either way, they're historic (old) 



ItalianScallion said:


> The Apocryphal books all fail in one or more areas, so the "Canon" was considered closed forever with 66 books. The Hebrew Canon of 39 OT writings was accepted by most folks but, later, the RCC (Council of Trent & 1st Vatican Council) decided to include some Apocryphal books in their "Bible" (hence the many Catholic Church contradictions with the Bible today).



Catholics don't contradict the _Bible_ rather they contradict the Protestant interpretation of the Bible.  It's just a difference in interpretation; at the end of the day, you're all Christian! 



ItalianScallion said:


> If I said you were dumb because you are a blonde, that would be stereotyping you and ALL blondes. Since I have found one blonde with some sense, I can't stereotype them all. I guess it could be called judging too...





So, one smart blonde means not all blondes are dumb THEREFOR one non-extreme Muslim means not all Muslims are extremists!



ItalianScallion said:


> If you live in So Md, I'd love to meet you some Sunday and we can talk more about these things. Red Robin, California, 11:30-1:30...



Might have to, my husband enjoys these sorts of discussion as well (assuming my husband doesn't negate the invitation  )!  Don't want to be outnumbered though


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> So if there _are_ ancient writings about the Son of God, written in [say] 1000 BC then that would indeed be a prophecy!  However, if there is no proof that anyone said/wrote about it until [say] 50 AD, then there are some questions.  Not saying either way.  So which Scrolls predict Jesus? (since they date from 150 BC through 70 AD)


I just told you darling. I gave you a big list of almost all of the OT prophesies about Jesus, written thousands of years before He was born. What are you, a blonde?   


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Well, I don't believe in the ability to predict the future (i.e. psychics) the I suppose the only way to do it would be through Devine Intervention!


  DIVINE, btw...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Catholics don't contradict the _Bible_ rather they contradict the Protestant interpretation of the Bible.  It's just a difference in interpretation; at the end of the day, you're all Christian!


 They seriously do contradict it in many places UNA. Go back and re-read this thread. The Bible makes it clear that not everyone is a Christian (Child of God) and the Bible is not open to personal interpretation. The 10 Commandments state their intent clearly and without ambiguity.


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Might have to, my husband enjoys these sorts of discussion as well (assuming my husband doesn't negate the invitation  )!  Don't want to be outnumbered though


I've met a few female forumites at RR, so I fail to understand why husbands object to.......Ohhhh; maybe they feel threatened because of what Libby said about me?  No need for that however. I'ts a public meeting. Heck, we're meeting in public on here aren't we? :shrug:


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> I just told you darling. I gave you a big list of almost all of the OT prophesies about Jesus, written thousands of years before He was born. What are you, a blonde?



You were _told_ they were written prior to Jesus' birth.  I'm talking about an actual piece of paper (or something).  But I'm not contradicting you here.  The Dead Sea Scrolls are estimated to be from before Jesus to just after his death.  So there is a good change they ARE that "piece of paper" predicting his coming!



ItalianScallion said:


> DIVINE, btw...



Dang auto-correct.



ItalianScallion said:


> They seriously do contradict it in many places UNA. Go back and re-read this thread. The Bible makes it clear that not everyone is a Christian (Child of God) and the Bible is not open to personal interpretation. The 10 Commandments state their intent clearly and without ambiguity.



I didn't know Catholics had different set of Commandments!



ItalianScallion said:


> I've met a few female forumites at RR, so I fail to understand why husbands object to.......Ohhhh; maybe they feel threatened because of what Libby said about me?  No need for that however. I'ts a public meeting. Heck, we're meeting in public on here aren't we? :shrug:



**Kidding** 

Dare I ask what Libby said about you?  Should I remember?


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> The Hebrew Canon of 39 OT writings was accepted by most folks but, later, the RCC (Council of Trent & 1st Vatican Council) decided to include some Apocryphal books in their "Bible" (hence the many Catholic Church contradictions with the Bible today).



For the real deal:
The Apocrypha? 
Why do Catholics include the apocrypha as part of their Bible? - Yahoo! Answers



UNA said:


> Catholics don't contradict the _Bible_ rather they contradict the Protestant interpretation of the Bible.  It's just a difference in interpretation; at the end of the day, you're all Christian!



Smart woman. 



ItalianScallion said:


> The Bible makes it clear that not everyone is a Christian (Child of God) and *the Bible is not open to personal interpretation*.



I'm glad to see you admit that; however, if the bible isn't open to personal interpretation, then why do you do exactly that?


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> "Snarky" comments beget "snarky" comments


We obviously got off in the wrong direction. I do not apologize for trying to present Jesus as Savior and Lord to you. I do apologize for being less than kind.



			
				UNA said:
			
		

> How come you don't feel that other participant have too much time on their hands?  I'm not the only one in here.
> 
> At least I don't have time to insert myself into threads just to point out that I think they have too much time on their hands


I have told starman, IS, and Pys at times that I thought they were wasting their time especially in their arguments about Catholicism with Radiant and others. But we have a much longer, even though cyber, relationship.



			
				UNA said:
			
		

> You don't have a desire to learn about things?  I was raised Episcopal and have never really had the opportunity to ask these questions.  I figured a forum like this would be a good place to do it!  Anninimity allows me to have this discussion with Christians without _actually_ being judged.  UNA is being judged (by some here) not ME!


I learn about things all the time. I do not try to learn about things in which I do not believe.



			
				UNA said:
			
		

> As soon as a Jew or Muslim joins I'll have questions for them too!  We fear what we don't understand therefor understanding leads to acceptance.  Goes back to that whole 'judging' thing in previous posts.



Acceptance of people is one thing. Acceptance of their beliefs is another. One of my dear friends is a Jew. I witness to him too. So does his wife; he married a Baptist. She and I are trying make him understand that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus Christ is Lord.

I truly hope all, you included, come to know Jesus as Savior and Lord out of love. Jesus told me, through the Bible, to treat others as I would like to be treated and to not just love those that are friends and family but to love even my enemies (no, I do not consider you an enemy).


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> No one in forcing you to read this and you have a right to not like the discussion.  So ignore it  note how I'm not participating in threads that I don't like (unless I really am trying to change people's opinions  )
> 
> Thank you for taking time out of your busy day to insult me!  Bye now!


You are right. I generally did not participate in this thread after you rejected my purpose. I must admit, even in anonymity, I do not take rejection well.

I obviously have not done as well as I might in treating others as I would be treated when it comes to you.

If you are local, you are invited to go to church; Life Community Church of God. Hope you will consider it.


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> I didn't know Catholics had different set of Commandments!


Yes! They took it upon themselves to disregard God and change His 10th Commandment into 2 different parts, and remove the second Commandment...
It must have interfered with the sale of their statues...


Radiant1 said:


> For the real deal:
> The Apocrypha?
> Why do Catholics include the apocrypha as part of their Bible? - Yahoo! Answers
> I'm glad to see you admit that. However, if the bible isn't open to personal interpretation, then why do you do exactly that?


Flawed sites and information leads to flawed doctrines. Never consult a biased Catholic website for objective information. Use the Bible; it's unbiased.

Why do YOU follow someone elses interpretation of it? Should I name the papa? Nice to have you back R1...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Dare I ask what Libby said about you?  Should I remember?





			
				libby said:
			
		

> Well, you looked nowhere near the age you gave me! And you looked nowhere near as Italian as I'd expected! BTW-where does the 'scallion' part come from? Actually, what struck me most about your appearance was your smile. You've got a very handsome smile; beautiful teeth.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> We obviously got off in the wrong direction. I do not apologize for trying to present Jesus as Savior and Lord to you. I do apologize for being less than kind.



You NEVER have to apologize for presenting what you believe, no matter who disagrees with your beliefs.  And thank you for the apology, likewise, I apologize for responding in kind. 



2ndAmendment said:


> I learn about things all the time. I do not try to learn about things in which I do not believe.



You don't ever discuss political views?  Why would I bother having this sort of discussion with someone I agree with on the subject??  Sounds pretty boring if you ask me 



2ndAmendment said:


> Acceptance of people is one thing. Acceptance of their beliefs is another. One of my dear friends is a Jew. I witness to him too. So does his wife; he married a Baptist. She and I are trying make him understand that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus Christ is Lord.



And I bet he just looooves that you do that  (unless he initiates the discussion like I have here, that's different  )  Acceptance of other's beliefs is an integral part of peace.



2ndAmendment said:


> I truly hope all, you included, come to know Jesus as Savior and Lord out of love. Jesus told me, through the Bible, to treat others as I would like to be treated and to not just love those that are friends and family but to love even my enemies (no, I do not consider you an enemy).



That's a wonderful way to live your life, it is a guiding force in mine as well.  Just remember that even us evil non-Christians live that was as well 



2ndAmendment said:


> You are right. I generally did not participate in this thread after you rejected my purpose. I must admit, even in anonymity, I do not take rejection well.



I didn't reject your purpose, just you're tactic (if I remember correctly, you quoted a lot of Bible passages?  Sorry, I might be getting you confused with someone else).  I made it clear at the beginning that I was here to discuss not be converted.  Think of this sort of discussion as a brain exercise! 



2ndAmendment said:


> I obviously have not done as well as I might in treating others as I would be treated when it comes to you.



You've done fine, we all get frustrated at times.  The key is to recognize those times and learn not to get upset again.  You got offended and reacted; if I'm not ready to get that sort of reaction then I shouldn't be in here!



2ndAmendment said:


> If you are local, you are invited to go to church; Life Community Church of God. Hope you will consider it.



Thank you very much for the invite!  I don't expect that I will be attending but the invitation is greatly appreciated!  I don't technically have a church to invite you to so instead, I'll invite you to my church of "you Believe what you want and I'll believe in what I want" and we'll all have an informative, open discussion!  Haha, I've learned more in here about Christianity, Christians, Protestants, Catholics and the Bible then I ever did in Sunday School!  Hope everyone else will learn a little about other types of believers as well!


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Yes! They took it upon themselves to disregard God and change His 10th Commandment into 2 different parts, and remove the second Commandment...
> It must have interfered with the sale of their statues...



Hmmmm...where can I read the Catholic's version?  (So I don't end up getting an incorrect version online)



ItalianScallion said:


> Originally Posted by libby
> Well, you looked nowhere near the age you gave me! And you looked nowhere near as Italian as I'd expected! BTW-where does the 'scallion' part come from? Actually, what struck me most about your appearance was your smile. You've got a very handsome smile; beautiful teeth.



Hahahahhaha


----------



## RedBaron




----------



## Zguy28

UNA said:


> Hmmmm...where can I read the Catholic's version?  (So I don't end up getting an incorrect version online)
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahhaha



Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Yes! They took it upon themselves to disregard God and change His 10th Commandment into 2 different parts, and remove the second Commandment...
> It must have interfered with the sale of their statues...





Zguy28 said:


> Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



By all means UNA, read the wiki article and discern for yourself if anyone has actually changed anything.



ItalianScallion said:


> Flawed sites and information leads to flawed doctrines. Never consult a biased Catholic website for objective information.



Most assuredly she should learn what Catholics believe from people that are not Catholic because they aren't in the least biased or have flawed doctrines. 



ItalianScallion said:


> Use the Bible; it's unbiased.



If the bible interpreted itself, then there wouldn't be countless variations of interpretations amongst those who, ironically, think the bible interprets itself. <---That's quite the conundrum.



ItalianScallion said:


> Why do YOU follow someone elses interpretation of it? Should I name the papa? Nice to have you back R1...



It's already clear that the bible doesn't interpret itself, so answer the question I put to you instead of dodging. You wouldn't by chance use your own personal interpretation now would you? Heh. :coughcough:

I follow the authority God gave us. The Christian community didn't start out with a bible and it's that very authority that gave it to us. But of course, you know that and are simply being disengenuous.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Yes! They took it upon themselves to disregard God and change His 10th Commandment into 2 different parts, and remove the second Commandment...
> It must have interfered with the sale of their statues...



From what I've found, the "Catholic Ten Commandments" and the "Protestant Ten Commandments" seem to only differ in their division WRT Scripture.  I don't see where the Catholic version has removed/reinterpreted anything.  Did I miss something?



Radiant1 said:


> By all means UNA, read the wiki article and discern for yourself if anyone has actually changed anything.



Yeah, I read the Wiki article again, still can't see anything 'off' about the Catholic version.  Maybe it's because I was raised Episcopal which is, in many aspect, similar to Catholicism; my family often jokes that it's "Catholic Light" 



Radiant1 said:


> Most assuredly she should learn what Catholics believe from people that are not Catholic because they aren't in the least biased or have flawed doctrines.



I was waiting for you to come back!!  I don't know enough about Catholicism to defend it properly.  It doesn't really matter though because I really don't understand the purpose of trying to discredit other beliefs (Catholic OR non-Christian) other than to make your own beliefs seem 'better' or something...I don't know, maybe I have to be a Christian to get it  _Can't we all just get along???_ ...no really, why can't we all just get along...?


----------



## UNA

Zguy28 said:


> Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thank you by the way; very good article.  I love Wikipedia!


----------



## Bird Dog

UNA said:


> From what I've found, the "Catholic Ten Commandments" and the "Protestant Ten Commandments" seem to only differ in their division WRT Scripture.  I don't see where the Catholic version has removed/reinterpreted anything.  Did I miss something?
> I was waiting for you to come back!!  I don't know enough about Catholicism to defend it properly.  It doesn't really matter though because I really don't understand the purpose of trying to discredit other beliefs (Catholic OR non-Christian) other than to make your own beliefs seem 'better' or something...I don't know, maybe I have to be a Christian to get it  _Can't we all just get along???_ ...no really, why can't we all just get along...?



You are having a conversation with a false prophet with a mother/ female problem. and a ex-Catholic with " who knows" what problems.

They would rather bash the Catholic Church than find true souls to to save.
They beleive that Catholics have made up a new Jesus, re-written the entiire New Testament, and worship pagan gods and false idols.

Evangelicalism----------------------->coming to a stripmall near you.

Oh I promised to stay on the outdoor threads, sorry.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Most assuredly she should learn what Catholics believe from people that are not Catholic because they aren't in the least biased or have flawed doctrines.


My bias is towards the Bible. One day you'll learn that it is the only source of spiritual truth...but then again, I've probably told you that at least one or two
MILLION times. 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> If the bible interpreted itself, then there wouldn't be countless variations of interpretations amongst those who, ironically, think the bible interprets itself.
> It's already clear that the bible doesn't interpret itself, so answer the question I put to you instead of dodging. You wouldn't by chance use your own personal interpretation now would you? Heh. :coughcough:
> I follow the authority God gave us. The Christian community didn't start out with a bible and it's that very authority that gave it to us. But of course, you know that and are simply being disengenuous.


If people would drop all their pre-conceived notions and lies they've heard from false teachers, they would easily see the truth in the Bible. Do you think God doesn't want His people to know His truths. They're ONLY hidden from those who won't believe them. In context, the Bible interprets itself very nicely. People who don't read it that way are the ones who can't understand it.


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> Hahahahhaha


Are you saying that I DON'T have nice teeth woman!!?? Or that Libby is nearsighted??  Well, you missed a great chance to see them today at RR. Maybe next Sunday...


UNA said:


> From what I've found, the "Catholic Ten Commandments" and the "Protestant Ten Commandments" seem to only differ in their division WRT Scripture.  I don't see where the Catholic version has removed/reinterpreted anything.  Did I miss something?  Yeah, I read the Wiki article again, still can't see anything 'off' about the Catholic version.


Zguy posted a good site.
1) I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me 
2) You shall not make for yourself an idol
3) Do not take the name of the Lord in vain
4) Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
5) Honor your father and mother
6) You shall not murder 
7) You shall not commit adultery
8) You shall not steal
9) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
10) You shall not covet your neighbor's wife or anything that belongs to your neighbor

The above are the 10 Commandments (shortened a bit) as written in the Bible in Exodus 20. For the RCC version, just remove #2 and, so as to keep 10, shift all the numbers down one, then separate the 10th one into two parts (don't covet your neighbors wife; don't covet your neighbors goods) and voila! Now they have 10 without having to stop selling their graven images (idols). Go ahead; Ask Radiant1 to (honestly) post hers from her sources, then compare them...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> ...I really don't understand the purpose of trying to discredit other beliefs (Catholic OR non-Christian) other than to make your own beliefs seem 'better' or something...I don't know, maybe I have to be a Christian to get it  _Can't we all just get along???_ ...no really, why can't we all just get along...?


Wouldn't you want your doctor to speak out against another doctor who might have the wrong information on your condition? Or one who isn't very well versed in doing some major surgery that you require? This stuff is life & death serious UNA and I cannot let it just go unchallenged; especially if the title of this thread is true.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Bird Dog said:


> You are having a conversation with a false prophet with a mother/ female problem. and a ex-Catholic with " who knows" what problems. They would rather bash the Catholic Church than find true souls to to save. They beleive that Catholics have made up a new Jesus, re-written the entiire New Testament, and worship pagan gods and false idols.


Biased sources lead to biased answers. Flawed sources lead to...well, you see where this is going. 

IF you'd pay more/better attention, you'd see that we ARE trying to "find true souls to save" and are not "bashing" your church.


----------



## UNA

Bird Dog said:


> You are having a conversation with a false prophet with a mother/ female problem. and a ex-Catholic with " who knows" what problems.
> 
> They would rather bash the Catholic Church than find true souls to to save.
> They beleive that Catholics have made up a new Jesus, re-written the entiire New Testament, and worship pagan gods and false idols.
> 
> Evangelicalism----------------------->coming to a stripmall near you.
> 
> Oh I promised to stay on the outdoor threads, sorry.



You can be in whatever threads you want! 

Until the whole Catholic that came up, we were having a very nice conversation...I just don't understand the issue people have with Catholics.  And I really don't get the Evangelical thing


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Wouldn't you want your doctor to speak out against another doctor who might have the wrong information on your condition? Or one who isn't very well versed in doing some major surgery that you require? This stuff is life & death serious UNA and I cannot let it just go unchallenged; especially if the title of this thread is true.



Alas we come full circle; back to the difference between _facts_ and _faith_.  Faiths/beliefs can be interpreted, facts cannot.  So if a doctor is speaking out out against a quack doctor about to preform surgery on my then yes, of course he/she should do so.  If you interpret the Bible differently from someone else it is really each of your own precognitive!  And though I enjoy discussing these differences I don't want to be told I'm wrong nor that anyone else is unless the discussion turns to facts (which it has not) so therefore, YOU are not wrong, I am not wrong, CATHOLICS are not wrong, JEWS are not wrong, MUSLIMS are not wrong....................no one knows!  Maybe we're all right!  That would be nice huh?


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Biased sources lead to biased answers. Flawed sources lead to...well, you see where this is going.
> 
> IF you'd pay more/better attention, you'd see that we ARE trying to "find true souls to save" and are not "bashing" your church.



Awwww, are you trying to safe me?? 

Thank you, but I don't need saving  just good discussion!


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> Alas we come full circle; back to the difference between _facts_ and _faith_.  Faiths/beliefs can be interpreted, facts cannot.  So if a doctor is speaking out out against a quack doctor about to preform surgery on my then yes, of course he/she should do so.  If you interpret the Bible differently from someone else it is really each of your own precognitive!  And though I enjoy discussing these differences I don't want to be told I'm wrong nor that anyone else is unless the discussion turns to facts (which it has not) so therefore, YOU are not wrong, I am not wrong, CATHOLICS are not wrong, JEWS are not wrong, MUSLIMS are not wrong....................no one knows!  Maybe we're all right!  That would be nice huh?


That would be nice but it can't be true. It all goes back to one's source of spiritual truth. I wish it were different my dear lady friend. 


UNA said:


> Awwww, are you trying to safe me??
> Thank you, but I don't need saving  just good discussion!


"Safe" you? Is that like putting you in a safe house? 
Actually I AM trying to save you but you won't let me, so I can only "safe" you a seat on Sunday at RR since you said you live in St Mary's.


----------



## Radiant1

UNA said:


> From what I've found, the "Catholic Ten Commandments" and the "Protestant Ten Commandments" seem to only differ in their division WRT Scripture.  I don't see where the Catholic version has removed/reinterpreted anything.  Did I miss something?



You missed nothing. 



UNA said:


> Yeah, I read the Wiki article again, still can't see anything 'off' about the Catholic version.  Maybe it's because I was raised Episcopal which is, in many aspect, similar to Catholicism; my family often jokes that it's "Catholic Light"



It's because there is nothing "off" about it, anymore than there is something "off" about the Reformed, Orthodox, or Lutheran versions. 

Notice that IS did not take issue with Lutherans or any other denomination that isn't Catholic and  has a different way of listing them than he does. Of course, he would tell you that he's not biased or anything. 

"Catholic light"  I owe Episcopalians a great deal. They were the first in my Christian formation and taught me the Lord's Prayer at the age of five; I experienced the power of God's wonder and mystery while with them. I learned how to sing in praise while with the Methodists, fellowship with the Presbyterians and Lutherans, and deep-felt worship of God with the Catholics. I learned the pricelessness of love with the Hindus, the discipline of a moral life from the Buddhists, and living life in the moment from the so-called pagans (nature-based philosophies). 



UNA said:


> I was waiting for you to come back!!  I don't know enough about Catholicism to defend it properly.  It doesn't really matter though because I really don't understand the purpose of trying to discredit other beliefs (Catholic OR non-Christian) other than to make your own beliefs seem 'better' or something...I don't know, maybe I have to be a Christian to get it  _Can't we all just get along???_ ...no really, why can't we all just get along...?



We could all get along, but some choose not to. 



ItalianScallion said:


> My bias is towards the Bible. One day you'll learn that it is the only source of spiritual truth...but then again, I've probably told you that at least one or two
> MILLION times.



Correction, your bias is toward your own personal interpretation of the bible.



ItalianScallion said:


> If people would drop all their pre-conceived notions and lies they've heard from false teachers, they would easily see the truth in the Bible. Do you think God doesn't want His people to know His truths. They're ONLY hidden from those who won't believe them. In context, the Bible interprets itself very nicely. People who don't read it that way are the ones who can't understand it.



IOW, if people would just listen to you instead of themselves or others...the only way people will know God's truth is to listen to you and interpret the bible as you do...the truth in the bible is revealed only to those who listen to you and believe as you do...the bible interprets itself as long as it's how you interpret it, nevermind the thousands upon thousands who have differing interpretations; they don't know know what they're talking about...people who don't understand scripture exactly like you do just don't understand it.

Now, what did you say about pre-conceived notions, lies, and false teachers?


----------



## Zguy28

Going back somewhat to the original topic of this thread.

A very accurate view on how we are to apply prophecy. And it ain't spending gobs of time hunting for signs and wasting time. Stay awake!

The Day of the Lord, Part B - Broadcasts - Truth For Life


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> That would be nice but it can't be true. It all goes back to one's source of spiritual truth. I wish it were different my dear lady friend.



Maybe we each go to our own "heaven" or "hell"...who knows?



ItalianScallion said:


> "Safe" you? Is that like putting you in a safe house?
> Actually I AM trying to save you but you won't let me, so I can only "safe" you a seat on Sunday at RR since you said you live in St Mary's.



SAVE SAVE SAVE!!!   I need to stop posting from my iPhone!


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> Notice that IS did not take issue with Lutherans or any other denomination that isn't Catholic and  has a different way of listing them than he does. Of course, he would tell you that he's not biased or anything.



Funny, because I spent a lot of time in the Lutheran Church as well and everything I find in Wikipedia (and elsewhere) says that Catholics and Lutherans use the same Ten Commandments i.e. divides them in the same way....hmmmm



Radiant1 said:


> "Catholic light"  I owe Episcopalians a great deal. They were the first in my Christian formation and taught me the Lord's Prayer at the age of five; I experienced the power of God's wonder and mystery while with them. I learned how to sing in praise while with the Methodists, fellowship with the Presbyterians and Lutherans, and deep-felt worship of God with the Catholics. I learned the pricelessness of love with the Hindus, the discipline of a moral life from the Buddhists, and living life in the moment from the so-called pagans (nature-based philosophies).



This is probably going to sound pretty cheesy, but that is beautiful.  I myself and had the wonderful opportunity to experience many faiths and draw on each on them to form my own.  Now if I could just learn a little more about Judaism and Islam!  I would also love to spend more time with a Buddhist.  It's just sad there has to be idiot in EVERY ONE of the faiths listed.  There's an idiot in these forums running around pretending to be Wicca and 'cursing people' (really, he's just calling on the Watchtowers, not a curse  ).  This sort of thing give all Wiccans a bad name and there are people like this in Christianity as well...sad...the idiots always seem to be louder than the 'normal' ones.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> And I bet he just looooves that you do that  (unless he initiates the discussion like I have here, that's different  )  Acceptance of other's beliefs is an integral part of peace.


He often sends me a ham at Christmas.

Politics?  I'm not 2ndAmendment for nothing. I have copies of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and other historical research links on my web site. I have read the Constitution multiple times and am of the opinion that those that do not read the Constitution and understand it in terms of the writers have no comprehension of their rights. I am a strict constructionist; Constitution says what it means and means what is says. Eighty-five to ninety percent of what the federal government does has no Constitutional authority. I was posting that the U.S. was bankrupt two to three years ago. But that is an entirely different forum.


UNA said:


> Thank you very much for the invite!  I don't expect that I will be attending but the invitation is greatly appreciated!  I don't technically have a church to invite you to so instead, I'll invite you to my church of "you Believe what you want and I'll believe in what I want" and we'll all have an informative, open discussion!  Haha, I've learned more in here about Christianity, Christians, Protestants, Catholics and the Bible then I ever did in Sunday School!  Hope everyone else will learn a little about other types of believers as well!


The invite stands. We will be presenting a play on Easter. We have done it for years. Lots of believers and non-believers, the OOEAC folks.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Politics?  I'm not 2ndAmendment for nothing. I have copies of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and other historical research links on my web site. I have read the Constitution multiple times and am of the opinion that those that do not read the Constitution and understand it in terms of the writers have no comprehension of their rights. I am a strict constructionist; Constitution says what it means and means what is says. Eighty-five to ninety percent of what the federal government does has no Constitutional authority. I was posting that the U.S. was bankrupt two to three years ago. But that is an entirely different forum..



This is why I'm not affiliated with any political party; one side wants to take away my rights and give them to other people while the other side want to take away my rights because they think I'm immoral!


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> This is why I'm not affiliated with any political party; one side wants to take away my rights and give them to other people while the other side want to take away my rights because they think I'm immoral!



I'm not sure how you got out of 2nd's post that he asserted taking away any rights.  :shrug:


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> I'm not sure how you got out of 2nd's post that he asserted taking away any rights.  :shrug:



Oh no no no!!!  I wasn't doing that at ALL!!!  I'm so sorry 2nd if it looked that way!!!  I was merely stating my reasons for remaining unaffiliated.  2nd spoke of one's rights according to the constitution (which is what I feel our politicians have forgotten to read) therefore many of them, one way or another, try to take away our rights!

So sorry, reeeaaaaly didn't mean to imply the 2nd was doing anything WRT to one's rights!!!!!!


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> Maybe we each go to our own "heaven" or "hell"...who knows?


There's a saying that goes:
For believers, this earth is the only Hell they'll ever see.
For unbelievers, this is the only Heaven they'll ever see...See? 
Did you "safe" anyone today?


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> This is why I'm not affiliated with any political party; one side wants to take away my rights and give them to other people while the other side want to take away my rights because they think I'm immoral!





PsyOps said:


> I'm not sure how you got out of 2nd's post that he asserted taking away any rights.  :shrug:





UNA said:


> Oh no no no!!!  I wasn't doing that at ALL!!!  I'm so sorry 2nd if it looked that way!!!  I was merely stating my reasons for remaining unaffiliated.  2nd spoke of one's rights according to the constitution (which is what I feel our politicians have forgotten to read) therefore many of them, one way or another, try to take away our rights!
> 
> So sorry, reeeaaaaly didn't mean to imply the 2nd was doing anything WRT to one's rights!!!!!!



No harm; no foul.

The least amount of government results in the greatest amount of freedom. I'd even give up my Social Security, and I am about to start collecting, if they would just give back what I have paid in. Same with Medicare. Where in the Constitution are they authorized? Nowhere. 

But wow am I off topic.

Una, have you ever read the Bible? Not picking a fight here; just asking.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> There's a saying that goes:
> For believers, this earth is the only Hell they'll ever see.
> For unbelievers, this is the only Heaven they'll ever see...See?
> Did you "safe" anyone today?



Good saying, but most people are believers in something, just not exactly what you believe!  It's the beauty of free will and out frontal lobes


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> No harm; no foul.
> 
> The least amount of government results in the greatest amount of freedom. I'd even give up my Social Security, and I am about to start collecting, if they would just give back what I have paid in. Same with Medicare. Where in the Constitution are they authorized? Nowhere.



EXACTLY!!!  And I'd certainly give up my Social Security, I'm not even 30 yet, I'll NEVER see a dine of it! 



2ndAmendment said:


> Una, have you ever read the Bible? Not picking a fight here; just asking.



I've read Genesis and other parts here and there.  My husband has read a good portion of it so I often go to him for reference (or at least where to look).  We were both raised Christian and attended Sunday School in our youths.  I was even an acolyte!  So I've read parts.  We actually have more Bibles than anyone I know which is saying a lot since neither of us define ourselves as Christian   What can I say, they're pretty!  (I love old books and collect many others as well)

I'm actually fairly well versed in Christianity [I obviously don't know as much as others here but I know a little].


----------



## tiger78

I've read Genesis and other parts here and there.  My husband has read a good portion of it so I often go to him for reference (or at least where to look).  We were both raised Christian and attended Sunday School in our youths.  I was even an acolyte!  So I've read parts.  We actually have more Bibles than anyone I know which is saying a lot since neither of us define ourselves as Christian   What can I say, they're pretty!  (I love old books and collect many others as well)

I'm actually fairly well versed in Christianity [I obviously don't know as much as others here but I know a little].[/QUOTE]


You really consider yourself "well-versed" in Christianity, when you state you have only read Genesis and parts here and there.  
From your other posts you sound like a well educated person, I would bet that you had to actually open many books and study in order to become well versed in your field.  Owning a book does not make you knowledgeable....


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> We were both raised Christian and attended Sunday School in our youths.  I was even an acolyte!


What caused you to "stray"?


----------



## Bird Dog

ItalianScallion said:


> There's a saying that goes:
> For believers, this earth is the only Hell they'll ever see.
> For unbelievers, this is the only Heaven they'll ever see...See?



I have also heard a saying about Heaven:

You will not only be suprised who is there, but 
you will be suprised by who is Not there.


----------



## UNA

tiger78 said:


> You really consider yourself "well-versed" in Christianity, when you state you have only read Genesis and parts here and there.
> From your other posts you sound like a well educated person, I would bet that you had to actually open many books and study in order to become well versed in your field.  Owning a book does not make you knowledgeable....




I said fairly well versed as in I've read portions of the bible and was educated on the rest. I went to sunday school/bible study every week for more that 15 years, I was confirmed and read/studied/discussed on my own. I never claimed that I was well versed because I own a bible. Please be sure to read my whole post next time. Thanks!


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> What caused you to "stray"?



Too many inconsistencies with what I perceive as reality. Basically the whole fact v faith thing we've been discussing here. And I got tired of the divisiveness within the church.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Bird Dog said:


> I have also heard a saying about Heaven:
> You will not only be suprised who is there, but
> you will be suprised by who is Not there.


To a certain extent I have to agree with you on that! 


UNA said:


> Too many inconsistencies with what I perceive as reality. Basically the whole fact v faith thing we've been discussing here. And I got tired of the divisiveness within the church.


Don't look at it as divisiveness, look at it as a passionate search for the truth. These passionate discussions cause a LOT of truth to be brought out and that's a good thing. Christians CAN disagree on some things and still get to Heaven. Come on back! Don't let a the "heat of battle" spoil your perception...


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> To a certain extent I have to agree with you on that!
> 
> Don't look at it as divisiveness, look at it as a passionate search for the truth. These passionate discussions cause a LOT of truth to be brought out and that's a good thing. Christians CAN disagree on some things and still get to Heaven. Come on back! Don't let a the "heat of battle" spoil your perception...



Well, I'm a big proponent of equal rights, which includes gays so...that's a big issue. I don't like all the splits going on right now in many protastant churches. I don't lime the judging of Muslims nor people who ask too many questions. And remember, this is all in addition to the fact that I do t believe in the miracles, I believe in the hands-off higher power!


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Don't look at it as divisiveness, look at it as a passionate search for the truth.



What a load of...spin. 




UNA, Christianity is most certainly divided. If you ask when and how that happened, then I'll tell you.


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> What a load of...spin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UNA, Christianity is most certainly divided. If you ask when and how that happened, then I'll tell you.



Thank you!  I know how it happened and I know how it's still divided.  It's sad, isn't it all Christianity?  And even with differences in interpretation (and the splits that result) there should still be an overarching unity.  If for no other reason but to defeat those evil Muslims


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> What a load of...spin.


Yes you are but I still luv ya! 


UNA said:


> It's sad, isn't it all Christianity?  And even with differences in interpretation (and the splits that result) there should still be an overarching unity.  If for no other reason but to defeat those evil Muslims


No my dear, it isn't all Christianity. This is why there is soo much debate. God warned us against having major differences. The minor differences can be overlooked but the major ones cannot. God Himself will separate them at the end but it won't be pretty. This is why we get "passionate" in here sometimes. It's life saving 101 (or life "safing" as you say)...


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> ....
> 
> I've read Genesis and other parts here and there.  My husband has read a good portion of it so I often go to him for reference (or at least where to look).  We were both raised Christian and attended Sunday School in our youths.  I was even an acolyte!  So I've read parts.  We actually have more Bibles than anyone I know which is saying a lot since neither of us define ourselves as Christian   What can I say, they're pretty!  (I love old books and collect many others as well)
> 
> I'm actually fairly well versed in Christianity [I obviously don't know as much as others here but I know a little].



I went to church for as long as I can remember. I went to Sunday school, was an acolyte, usher, went to catechism class and was confirmed. I can honestly say that I do not believe I was a true Christian until I had been out of college for a few years and after I had read the Bible from cover to cover not jumping around.

Most churches never teach the entire Bible. Sunday school certainly does not.

Would you make a decision on whether a mathematical theory was probable without reading the entire work? I would think not. You certainly would not try to do any calculus without having learned algebra. Would you try to learn differential equations by reading the 8th chapter, then the 2nd, then the 10th, then the 1st and so on? Of course not.

Why, then, make judgements about the Bible without reading it?

Genesis was a tough sell to me because it conflicted with my education. Then I came to an understanding that if God is God, He is not man, and as a man, I cannot look at events as a man and say God could not do that.

Back to the "if game." If God is God and He controls all energy and matter at His will, why couldn't He just speak the universe into existence and in order to make interesting to us, made it so we perceive it in finite means with things already "aged." He was making a home for mankind. How interesting is a new house? Not very. It is just walls and stuff until the personal touches are added. So why couldn't God have added the "personal touches?'

So, I suggest, if you are really curious, read the Bible from cover to cover. Then you will have a much better understanding. You will learn that it is a history book of Abraham and his descendants, a book of poetry, histories of wars and conquest. It is a book about ordinary people and their experiences with God. It is about murderers (Moses for one), kings, and people in all walks of life. It is the genealogy of the house of Israel. It has guidance to raise children and to live our lives. And it is much more. But how can you know what it says without reading it and _knowing what it says_?


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Too many inconsistencies with what I perceive as reality. Basically the whole fact v faith thing we've been discussing here. And I got tired of the divisiveness within the church.



Divisiveness is caused by humans, not God. The Bible instructs Christians to be in unity with each other. Hard to understand that be some of the discussions in this forum, but even Christians fail to follow God's word; we are human.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Well, I'm a big proponent of equal rights, which includes gays so...that's a big issue. I don't like all the splits going on right now in many protastant churches. I don't lime the judging of Muslims nor people who ask too many questions. And remember, this is all in addition to the fact that I do t believe in the miracles, I believe in the hands-off higher power!



Homosexual behavior is sin just like murder, stealing, blaspheming, and any other sin. So that is certainly a problem. 

It gets back to the "if game." If God is God and the Bible is God's word, then He gets to define right and wrong, sin and righteousness.

Also, the Bible teaches to hate the sin but not to hate the sinner.


----------



## hotcoffee

UNA said:


> Well, I'm a big proponent of equal rights, which includes gays so...that's a big issue. I don't like all the splits going on right now in many protastant churches. I don't lime the judging of Muslims nor people who ask too many questions. And remember, this is all in addition to the fact that I do t believe in the miracles, I believe in the hands-off higher power!



Let me ask you this UNA....  

Preface....  God hates homosexuality.  It's in the Bible so it's true.  What people miss tho is that in the same passages God hates theives and drunkards.  One of the best preachers I ever met was a drunk before he was saved.  He was still a drunk, in that he was predisposed to be a drunk by genetic disposition but he wasn't drinking.  

Question...  Would the church accept an active drunk in the pulpit?  

Opinion.... It would be greatly frowned upon.  If the preacher continued to preach in a drunken state... he would be dismissed.... because God hates drunkards.  

Question....  Would the church accept a preacher in the pulpit who was stealing from the offering plate?  

Opinion... He'd be canned as soon as the deacons could figure it out.  

Question....  Why is homosexuality different?


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Yes you are but I still luv ya!
> 
> No my dear, it isn't all Christianity. This is why there is soo much debate. God warned us against having major differences. The minor differences can be overlooked but the major ones cannot. God Himself will separate them at the end but it won't be pretty. This is why we get "passionate" in here sometimes. It's life saving 101 (or life "safing" as you say)...



...and this is one of my issues. I don't believe in a higher power that expect so much from so little. I believe in a higher power that welcomes healthy disagreements!


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Yes you are but I still luv ya!
> 
> No my dear, it isn't all Christianity. This is why there is soo much debate. God warned us against having major differences. The minor differences can be overlooked but the major ones cannot. *God Himself will separate them at the end but it won't be pretty*. This is why we get "passionate" in here sometimes. It's life saving 101 (or life "safing" as you say)...



Don't you mean, "God will separate US at the end..."? You may not realize this, but God is going to judge you too.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Would you make a decision on whether a mathematical theory was probable without reading the entire work? I would think not. You certainly would not try to do any calculus without having learned algebra. Would you try to learn differential equations by reading the 8th chapter, then the 2nd, then the 10th, then the 1st and so on? Of course not.
> 
> Why, then, make judgements about the Bible without reading it?



Yes, math books aren't written like that, you often do jump around depending on you level and how you learn things! 



2ndAmendment said:


> Back to the "if game." If God is God and He controls all energy and matter at His will, why couldn't He just speak the universe into existence and in order to make interesting to us, made it so we perceive it in finite means with things already "aged." He was making a home for mankind. How interesting is a new house? Not very. It is just walls and stuff until the personal touches are added. So why couldn't God have added the "personal touches?'



I never said god COULDN'T do it, I just don't believe that is how he did it. I figure he/she had this bit of infinite mass and infinite density and went 'poof' big bang  and then let everything fall as it may. He/she rolled the dice and stayed hands off.  



2ndAmendment said:


> So, I suggest, if you are really curious, read the Bible from cover to cover. Then you will have a much better understanding. You will learn that it is a history book of Abraham and his descendants, a book of poetry, histories of wars and conquest. It is a book about ordinary people and their experiences with God. It is about murderers (Moses for one), kings, and people in all walks of life. It is the genealogy of the house of Israel. It has guidance to raise children and to live our lives. And it is much more. But how can you know what it says without reading it and _knowing what it says_?



I do recognize the Bible as a wonderful story full of some good rules to live by, take out the miracles and prejudices and you have a really good book!


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Divisiveness is caused by humans, not God. The Bible instructs Christians to be in unity with each other. Hard to understand that be some of the discussions in this forum, but even Christians fail to follow God's word; we are human.



That's why I continue to believe in a higher power, just not the one man told me I should believe in! And "we are human" isn't an excuse, Christian or not there is no reason for the judging and fighting that happens as a result of religion. Really, who cares what your neighbor believes in beyond a good discussion? If you believe your neighbor is going to he'll that's their issue!


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Homosexual behavior is sin just like murder, stealing, blaspheming, and any other sin. So that is certainly a problem.
> 
> It gets back to the "if game." If God is God and the Bible is God's word, then He gets to define right and wrong, sin and righteousness.
> 
> Also, the Bible teaches to hate the sin but not to hate the sinner.



But isn't that and interpretation of the Bible?


----------



## UNA

hotcoffee said:


> Let me ask you this UNA....
> 
> Preface....  God hates homosexuality.  It's in the Bible so it's true.  What people miss tho is that in the same passages God hates theives and drunkards.  One of the best preachers I ever met was a drunk before he was saved.  He was still a drunk, in that he was predisposed to be a drunk by genetic disposition but he wasn't drinking.
> 
> Question...  Would the church accept an active drunk in the pulpit?
> 
> Opinion.... It would be greatly frowned upon.  If the preacher continued to preach in a drunken state... he would be dismissed.... because God hates drunkards.
> 
> Question....  Would the church accept a preacher in the pulpit who was stealing from the offering plate?
> 
> Opinion... He'd be canned as soon as the deacons could figure it out.
> 
> Question....  Why is homosexuality different?



Drunkards and thieves ruin lives. One of those has done a great deal to making mine a bit tough. My gay friends and family have NEVER hurt me nor anyone else. Comparing drunkards to gays is a bigoted view point and if that means your god is bigoted then so be it. My higher power is loving and doesn't hate, not even bigots.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

I was a math major in college and I do not remember jumping around in the texts. Maybe you had strange professors.



UNA said:


> But isn't that and interpretation of the Bible?



I think the account of Sodom and Gomorrah is pretty plain.



> 1 Corintheans 6:9-11
> 
> 9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
> 
> 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
> 
> 11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.


That is pretty direct and shows no partiality. Sin is sin and sinners that are not sanctified through belief in God will not enter into God's kingdom.

You believe in a god. OK. What good is your god? What purpose? I see none. What do you see?

I believe in YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isac, and Jacob, the One true living God that hears my prayers, is active in my life, helping, guiding, and saving me even from myself at time. I believe He does miracles. It is a miracle I'm here; I used to drive a car over 150MPH on the open roads, mostly Interstate 80, but locally for short bursts. I have spun out for multiple spins without rolling or crashing into anything or anybody. Luck? I do not think so. God wanted me here to chat with you. There are many other miracle I have had in my life and I have observed in the life of others. God loves me. He loves you too.

Does your god love you? If not, why do you still believe in your god? Why not just become an atheist and not believe in any god?

Just because you may have a vested interest in not believing the Bible does not make it or God not what God and the Bible are.

You know people who are or were homosexuals. That would be reason to not want the Bible to be the word of God. If it is, the people you know are in deep trouble if the Bible is the word of God unless they turn from choosing to perform homosexual acts.

One of my cousins was a homosexual. He died of AIDS. It hurts me to think that he will not be in God's kingdom. I truly liked him. But the fact is, that unless he accepted the forgiveness of God through Jesus before he died, the lake of fire is his ultimate destiny. I cannot change that.

In the game of ifs, if God is God and the Bible is God's word, you not believing in Him or His word will not change anything for those you know that are homosexuals. You not believing does prevent you from praying for them to find God's way for their lives.

Just because you do not believe in YHWH does not mean He does not believe in you.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Drunkards and thieves ruin lives. One of those has done a great deal to making mine a bit tough. My gay friends and family have NEVER hurt me nor anyone else. Comparing drunkards to gays is a bigoted view point and if that means your god is bigoted then so be it. My higher power is loving and doesn't hate, not even bigots.



And homosexual behavior does not ruin lives? Getting AIDS does not harm the family? Having AIDS does not effect the way people can relate? What happens if the person cuts themselves? Has a sore in their mouth and sneezes?

God loves homosexuals. He just does not condone homosexual behavior. There is a difference. One is the person and the other is an action by that person.

I submit that preferring homosexuals over drunks is as bigoted as the other way around.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> I was a math major in college and I do not remember jumping around in the texts. Maybe you had strange professors.



My degree is as valid as any other.  I actually went to school with the intention of teaching mathematics; so in addition to a degree in mathematics I had attained all but one credit of a teaching degree.  Math textbooks are all written differently (hence there being more than one version); each writer makes an interpretation of the proper order to teach and teachers; in turn, make their own interpretation.



2ndAmendment said:


> OK. What good is your god? What purpose? I see none. What do you see?



My "god" doesn't require labels or strict rules.  My "god" does not judge people who believe differently, because different beliefs do not make you evil nor bad nor deserving of hell.  True goodness is what all humans should strive for.



2ndAmendment said:


> Does your god love you? If not, why do you still believe in your god? Why not just become an atheist and not believe in any god?



Of course my "god" loves me, and you, and all living things.  If my "god" didn't love all things then you're right; why would I believe? 

You cannot just "become" and atheist, it requires a belief in no higher power and I do believe.  Do you equate atheism to non-Christian or non-mainstream religion?



2ndAmendment said:


> Just because you may have a vested interest in not believing the Bible does not make it or God not what God and the Bible are.



I don't have a 'vested interest' (whatever that means...) in not believing the Bible, I just don't believe in the ghost stories.  I honestly (and reeeealy not trying to offend here, but we're being honest  ) view religions that attempt to explain creation and that have stories like the flood to be on the same level as Greek mythology.



2ndAmendment said:


> You know people who are or were homosexuals. That would be reason to not want the Bible to be the word of God. If it is, the people you know are in deep trouble if the Bible is the word of God unless they turn from choosing to perform homosexual acts.
> 
> One of my cousins was a homosexual. He died of AIDS. It hurts me to think that he will not be in God's kingdom. I truly liked him. But the fact is, that unless he accepted the forgiveness of God through Jesus before he died, the lake of fire is his ultimate destiny. I cannot change that.



*Are* not were homosexuals.  Homosexuality is not a disease that _needs_ a cure nor is it a choice.  I feel badly that you lost a loved one to AIDS but I hope you've not ignored everyone else who's contracted HIV/AIDS who isn't gay.  You know it's not a gay disease right?

I do not believe that your cousin is burning in hell, I believe that he is between worlds, peaceful and free of pain.  When he has had time to come to terms with his life (not with being gay, his whole life in general; the good he did, the bad he did, the bad done to him......) he will enter eternity.  He will be joyful and accepted for who he is, he will be loved and surrounded by family and friends (and pets  ).  Free of bigotry.



2ndAmendment said:


> In the game of ifs, if God is God and the Bible is God's word, you not believing in Him or His word will not change anything for those you know that are homosexuals. You not believing does prevent you from praying for them to find God's way for their lives.



I recognize that I my be wrong.  Maybe the literal Bible _is_ right.  But I cannot live a life in fear of upsetting some grumpy, sensitive higher power.  Maybe I'm going to hell but I'd rather spend eternity in hell than with the god that sent me there.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> And homosexual behavior does not ruin lives? Getting AIDS does not harm the family? Having AIDS does not effect the way people can relate? What happens if the person cuts themselves? Has a sore in their mouth and sneezes?



*AIDS IS NOT A GAY DISEASE!!*!  Read the case studies!  KIDS HAVE CONTRACTED IT!!!  Straight women are more likely to contract it than any other demographic (I think African American women are more likely than white women though)



2ndAmendment said:


> God loves homosexuals. He just does not condone homosexual behavior. There is a difference. One is the person and the other is an action by that person.



Oh, well I'm glad he still loves them but is sending them to hell anyways...what a great *"Father"*



2ndAmendment said:


> I submit that preferring homosexuals over drunks is as bigoted as the other way around.



So, the drunk who comes home and beats his wife and children.  The drunk who ran her car off the road and killed the soldier.  The drunks that lost their jobs because they couldn't control their addiction.  Alcoholism can be fixed and SHOULD be.  Many recovering alcoholics have fought harder than you or I ever will for anything.  But drunkards (those who do nothing to help themselves) are week, selfish and hurtful.  They intentionally continue to ruin their lives as well as the lives of everyone who love(d) them.  Like I said, I've been hurt by a drunk, but NEVER a homosexual.  It has often been my gay friends/family that have been there when I needed them because of the drunkard in my life.  So DO NOT equate a drunk to a homosexual.  Call me a bigot if you want but I'll take a guy who prefers to have sex with other guys over a guy who drinks and beats me *ANY* day of the week.  Would you rather you child be a drunkard than a homosexual??????


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> *AIDS IS NOT A GAY DISEASE!!*! ...


Quit shouting! No need to get heated. Never said it was. Matter of fact evidence is that AIDS started with men having sex with green monkeys, bestiality, another sin.
. 





UNA said:


> Would you rather you child be a drunkard than a homosexual??????



I would rather neither, both are sin, but quite frankly, I'd rather my child be a drunk than choose to be involved in homosexual behavior. Not that either sin is better than the other. I am not homophobic but do recognize that I prefer not to associate with homosexuals. I have chosen in the past not to attend a function where I knew openly homosexual people would be.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Quit shouting! No need to get heated. Never said it was. Matter of fact evidence is that AIDS started with men having sex with green monkeys, bestiality, another sin.



You implied it 



2ndAmendment said:


> I would rather neither, both are sin, but quite frankly, I'd rather my child be a drunk than choose to be involved in homosexual behavior. Not that either sin is better than the other. I am not homophobic but do recognize that I prefer not to associate with homosexuals. I have chosen in the past not to attend a function where I knew openly homosexual people would be.



They're everywhere you know  it's not like they where a big letter "H" on their jackets...careful, you might catch it


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Don't you mean, "God will separate US at the end..."? You may not realize this, but God is going to judge you too.


Are you saying that I'm judging your salvation? (My feisty friend is getting sensitive lately). I'm speaking about God separating the saints from the "aints".  


UNA said:


> Drunkards and thieves ruin lives. One of those has done a great deal to making mine a bit tough.


Is this a family member? (No need to be specific as to whom it is)...I'd just like to know so I can understand you better.


UNA said:


> ...and this is one of my issues. I don't believe in a higher power that expect so much from so little. I believe in a higher power that welcomes healthy disagreements!


You soo don't understand the way God works, do you my friend? You're looking at Him from a completely skewed perspective UNA. Disagreements will happen because we're human, so Christians can disagree on certain things. There are, however, certain things that are etched in stone about God that NO ONE can change no matter what they believe. What one believes about God doesn't change who He is. You CAN have the wrong one....just like Oprah does.

If/when you read the Gospels in the Bible, you'll see that Jesus had to chastize a bunch of people, but He did it out of love for them because He knew that they didn't know who He was.


----------



## PsyOps

2ndAmendment said:


> I would rather neither, both are sin, but quite frankly, I'd rather my child be a drunk than choose to be involved in homosexual behavior. Not that either sin is better than the other. I am not homophobic but do recognize that I prefer not to associate with homosexuals. I have chosen in the past not to attend a function where I knew openly homosexual people would be.



Even though we probably agree God frowns equally on all sins (except blaspheming the Holy Spirit), from the human side of things, I have experienced both; I have members of my family that have been alcoholics and others gay.  I will tell you this, I will choose being around someone that is gay over someone that is an alcoholic.  Alcoholics tend to be loud, obnoxious, angry, violent, and destructive.  I have two cousins: one gay and the other that abandoned her baby.  My gay cousin adopted the child and has provided that child a very loving home; unlike the cousin that chose a life of partying over her own child.

I don’t find either lifestyle acceptable, but I believe alcoholism (and other substance abuse) to be far more destructive to our society than homosexuality.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Are you saying that I'm judging your salvation? (My feisty friend is getting sensitive lately). I'm speaking about God separating the saints from the "aints".



Ummm, no. I meant what I said. By failing to include yourself you've made yourself a saint; "them" as opposed to "us". God will judge me, you, and everyone else. Beware your pride, IS.


----------



## Radiant1

2ndAmendment said:


> I would rather neither, both are sin, but quite frankly, I'd rather my child be a drunk than choose to be involved in homosexual behavior. Not that either sin is better than the other. I am not homophobic but do recognize that I prefer not to associate with homosexuals. I have chosen in the past not to attend a function where I knew openly homosexual people would be.



If both ar sin, and one is not better than the other, then why the differentiation on whom you choose to associate with? Perhaps you  need to re-think the homophobic thing.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Ummm, no. I meant what I said. By failing to include yourself you've made yourself a saint; "them" as opposed to "us". God will judge me, you, and everyone else. Beware your pride, IS.


Actually dear heart, I AM a saint. Aren't you? That's why I can refer to the "aints" as them. Are you still struggling with that: "we really can't know if we're saved" stuff?


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> *Actually dear heart, I AM a saint*. Aren't you? That's why I can refer to the "aints" as them. Are you still struggling with that: "we really can't know if we're saved" stuff?



Uh hmm, you just keep telling yourself that.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> You implied it
> 
> 
> 
> They're everywhere you know  it's not like they where a big letter "H" on their jackets...careful, you might catch it



What don't you understand about me not being homophobic? But when I do know and given  the choice, I do choose to not associate.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

Radiant1 said:


> If both ar sin, and one is not better than the other, then why the differentiation on whom you choose to associate with? Perhaps you  need to re-think the homophobic thing.



Not homophobic. Not afraid of much of anything. I do have a bit of a phobia of spiders, so I guess I have mild arachnophobia. Preferences. We all have them.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

Radiant1 said:


> Uh hmm, you just keep telling yourself that.



I am too. All Christians are saints. The Bible refers to all the believers as saints.

    Matthew 27:52     The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;
    Acts 9:13     But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem;
    Acts 9:32     [ Peter's Ministry ] Now as Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda.
    Acts 9:41     And he gave her his hand and raised her up; and calling the saints and widows, he presented her alive.
    Acts 26:10     "And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them.
    Romans 1:7     to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
    Romans 8:27     and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
    Romans 12:13     contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality.
    Romans 15:25     but now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints.
    Romans 15:26     For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.
    Romans 15:31     that I may be rescued from those who are disobedient in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may prove acceptable to the saints;
    Romans 16:2     that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.
    Romans 16:15     Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them.
    1 Corinthians 1:2     To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:
    1 Corinthians 6:1     Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints?
     1 Corinthians 6:2     Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?
    1 Corinthians 14:33     for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
    1 Corinthians 16:1     Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.
    1 Corinthians 16:15     Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints),
     2 Corinthians 1:1     Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth with all the saints who are throughout Achaia:
    2 Corinthians 8:4     begging us with much urging for the favor of participation in the support of the saints,
    2 Corinthians 9:1     For it is superfluous for me to write to you about this ministry to the saints;
     2 Corinthians 9:12     For the ministry of this service is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing through many thanksgivings to God.
    2 Corinthians 13:13     All the saints greet you.
    Ephesians 1:1     Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus:


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Is this a family member? (No need to be specific as to whom it is)...I'd just like to know so I can understand you better.



Yes, it is a family member.



ItalianScallion said:


> You soo don't understand the way God works, do you my friend? You're looking at Him from a completely skewed perspective UNA. Disagreements will happen because we're human, so Christians can disagree on certain things.



Disagreements are one thing; fighting and condemnation is another.  Not to mention the wars between Christians and people of other beliefs throughout history!  Religious people often get too extreme and their beliefs that they are right and everyone else is wrong leads to war.


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> Even though we probably agree God frowns equally on all sins (except blaspheming the Holy Spirit), from the human side of things, I have experienced both; I have members of my family that have been alcoholics and others gay.  I will tell you this, I will choose being around someone that is gay over someone that is an alcoholic.  Alcoholics tend to be loud, obnoxious, angry, violent, and destructive.  I have two cousins: one gay and the other that abandoned her baby.  My gay cousin adopted the child and has provided that child a very loving home; unlike the cousin that chose a life of partying over her own child.
> 
> I don’t find either lifestyle acceptable, but I believe alcoholism (and other substance abuse) to be far more destructive to our society than homosexuality.



See, I have no problem with people who don't agree with homosexuality.  You're free to have whatever opinion you want as long as you recognize they're free to do the same!  You give a beautiful example of adoption and love by a gay person; should be proof enough that they're not 'evil'.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> What don't you understand about me not being homophobic? But when I do know and given  the choice, I do choose to not associate.



That's homophobic!!!  If someone chose to 'not associate' with African Americans just because they're African Americans you'd be a racist.  So doing that with gays makes you homophobic!


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> That's homophobic!!!  If someone chose to 'not associate' with African Americans just because they're African Americans you'd be a racist.  So doing that with gays makes you homophobic!



I am not afraid of homosexual people. Phobias are things of which one is afraid.

I do not choose to be around drunks. I'm not phobic of them either. I do not choose to be around druggies. I am not phobic of them either.

You are wrong in your labeling of me.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> I am not afraid of homosexual people. Phobias are things of which one is afraid.
> 
> I do not choose to be around drunks. I'm not phobic of them either. I do not choose to be around druggies. I am not phobic of them either.
> 
> You are wrong in your labeling of me.



Homophobia: A range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and in some cases transgender and intersex people and behaviour. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, *aversion*, and irrational fear. ("webster.com"; "Dictonary.com"; "European Parliament resolution on homophobia in Europe")

"Drunks" and "druggies" are _dangerous_ and should generally be avoided.  Phobias are considered to be _irrational _in nature i.e. a fear that is not warranted (like an irrational fear of purple things  NOT like a general 'fear' - or aversion - to "drunks" and "druggies" who can hurt you).  Your aversion to gays is irrational as they are not inherently dangerous.  Therefore; you are homophobic, not in my opinion but by definition.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Uh hmm, you just keep telling yourself that.


2A beat me to it. Thanks 2A.

As for you my dear question dodging feisty friend: Do you consider yourself a saint? Apparently you don't, because you'd have been all over that one. It seems that you dont believe what "SAINT John" said??:

13 "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 
14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us..."


UNA said:


> Yes, it is a family member.


  I'm soo sorry to hear about that my friend. I hope you've come through it ok? 


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Disagreements are one thing; fighting and condemnation is another.  Not to mention the wars between Christians and people of other beliefs throughout history!  Religious people often get too extreme and their beliefs that they are right and everyone else is wrong leads to war.


You're broadbrushing Christians for some rarely occurring events...As was said before: Not everyone who fights or murders under the name of God, is a Christian.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> 2A beat me to it. Thanks 2A.
> 
> As for you my dear question dodging feisty friend: Do you consider yourself a saint? Apparently you don't, because you'd have been all over that one. It seems that you dont believe what "SAINT John" said??:
> 
> 13 "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
> 14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us..."



If you want to call all Christians saints, then by all means I am one. And if that's the case, then don't differentiate between you and them (or me). At any rate, my point is to ask you to beware your pride. Your "us versus them" mentality regarding fellow Christians reveals much.

Paul also calls believers "holy ones". Would you say you were holy IS?


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> That's homophobic!!!  If someone chose to 'not associate' with African Americans just because they're African Americans you'd be a racist.  So doing that with gays makes you homophobic!



I disagree with this.  I have no desire to associate with Harley Bikers.  I have no desire to associate with people that listen to punk rock.  I have no desire to associate with those that claim to be Jedi.  What sort of person would I be?

I have no ill-will towards anyone, but there are certain people I just have no desire to hang out with.  It's because I can't relate to them, or just can't tolerate their lifestyle.

A racist is someont that harbors hatred towards certain races.  I would classify a homophone as the same.  This implicit desire to label people because you fail to understand the larger reason behind their thinking is nothing more than an emotional response.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> I'm soo sorry to hear about that my friend. I hope you've come through it ok?



Everything is fine; thank you  I didn't bring it up for pity (though appreciated) I wanted to illustrate why the comparison is so offensive.



ItalianScallion said:


> You're broadbrushing Christians for some rarely occurring events...As was said before: Not everyone who fights or murders under the name of God, is a Christian.



Oh no!  I'm know not anywhere near ALL Christians are the extremists that cause these problems.  My point is that religion inherently breeds extremism.  Christians, Jews, Muslims, pagan religions throughout history and today!  I have beliefs that align here and there with many religions but I refuse to label myself.  This way, no one can broadbrush me nor can I therefore broadbrush anyone else (IMO).  I didn't mean to imply that I though all Christians were like this, I've met many, many perfectly open minded Christians, Jews and Muslims and I would never intend to stereotype them  because I know I don't like when people stereotype me!


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> I disagree with this.  I have no desire to associate with Harley Bikers.  I have no desire to associate with people that listen to punk rock.  I have no desire to associate with those that claim to be Jedi.  What sort of person would I be?
> 
> I have no ill-will towards anyone, but there are certain people I just have no desire to hang out with.  It's because I can't relate to them, or just can't tolerate their lifestyle.
> 
> A racist is someont that harbors hatred towards certain races.  I would classify a homophone as the same.  This implicit desire to label people because you fail to understand the larger reason behind their thinking is nothing more than an emotional response.



Someone who just 'doesn't prefer to 'hang out'' with people of certain interests (because your right, you want to interact with people you can relate to) is fine.  If someone said "I don't generally hang out with gays because I cannot relate" it's fine!  It when you specifically *AVOID *associating with someone because of their sexual preference, race, gender, age, life style choices that you begin to edge closer and closer to prejudice.  I (for example) don't associate with many moms because I can't relate, but I don't avoid situations where there will be moms! 

Prejudice means to prejudge.  Many people prejudge gays to be "over emotional, flamboyant, annoying, weak..." (for some reason, these prejudices seem to be more prevalent against gay men rather gay women...I don't get that...) people even thing homosexuality is CONTAGIOUS!!!!!  It's bigoted!


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Homophobia: A range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and in some cases transgender and intersex people and behaviour. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, *aversion*, and irrational fear. ("webster.com"; "Dictonary.com"; "European Parliament resolution on homophobia in Europe")
> 
> "Drunks" and "druggies" are _dangerous_ and should generally be avoided.  Phobias are considered to be _irrational _in nature i.e. a fear that is not warranted (like an irrational fear of purple things  NOT like a general 'fear' - or aversion - to "drunks" and "druggies" who can hurt you).  Your aversion to gays is irrational as they are not inherently dangerous.  Therefore; you are homophobic, not in my opinion but by definition.





> Definition of PHOBIA
> : an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation



The definition of Homophobia does not conform to the definition of Phobia therefore, by definition, is WRONG. It has been expanded to make it politically correct.

I did not avoid my cousin even though he had AIDS. I have no "exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear" of homosexuals. I *choose* not to associate with them.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> ... I would never intend to stereotype them  because I know I don't like when people stereotype me!



You just stereotype me.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> ... people even *thing* homosexuality is CONTAGIOUS!!!!!  It's bigoted!



I guess that is think.

Homosexual behavior is not contagious. AIDS is. 

I am a martial artist. Sparring, we often get cuts and scratches and blood flows. That is dangerous if one of the people has AIDS. That is but one reason I prefer not to put myself into close contact.

Why do you think gloves have become the norm when treating people? Fear of contamination, specifically AIDS. I am old enough to remember when gloves in medical treatment were not the norm.

Stereotype me if you will, but my avoidance is not because of irrational fear.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> The definition of Homophobia does not conform to the definition of Phobia therefore, by definition, is WRONG. It has been expanded to make it politically correct.



A phobia is an irrational fear or aversion to an object or *situation*.  I'm not here to debate etymology, so we'll just say your prejudiced instead of homophobic then.



2ndAmendment said:


> I did not avoid my cousin even though he had AIDS. I have no "exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear" of homosexuals. I *choose* not to associate with them.



I choose not to associate with drunks because a drunk can be dangerous.  What is your reason for avoiding gays?



2ndAmendment said:


> You just stereotype me.



I reacted to your words, you are the one who is speaking negatively about gays, you are stereotyping them.  If you don't want people to say you're prejudice against gays then don't talk like you are!



2ndAmendment said:


> Homosexual behavior is not contagious. AIDS is.
> 
> I am a martial artist. Sparring, we often get cuts and scratches and blood flows. That is dangerous if one of the people has AIDS. That is but one reason I prefer not to put myself into close contact.
> 
> Why do you think gloves have become the norm when treating people? Fear of contamination, specifically AIDS. I am old enough to remember when gloves in medical treatment were not the norm.
> 
> Stereotype me if you will, but my avoidance is not because of irrational fear.



You talk like AIDS is a gay disease, you have no way of knowing whether someone has AIDS or is gay.  So in order to avoid either you have to hide in your house!!  Gay people (I suppose you are thinking of gay men in particular here) did not and do not spread AIDS.  AIDS can result from any unprotected sex (or any other type of fluid exchange) homo AND heterosexual.  AIDS=/=Gay and Gay=/=AIDS.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> A phobia is an irrational fear or aversion to an object or *situation*.  I'm not here to debate etymology, so we'll just say your prejudiced instead of homophobic then.


Again with the labels. 




UNA said:


> I choose not to associate with drunks because a drunk can be dangerous.  What is your reason for avoiding gays?


I chose not to associate with known homosexuals, especially in the area of karate, because to do so could kill me and not by there attack but by accidental exchange of blood.




UNA said:


> I reacted to your words, you are the one who is speaking negatively about gays, you are stereotyping them.  If you don't want people to say you're prejudice against gays then don't talk like you are!


I know homosexual behavior is sin. No worse than any other sin, but sin is sin. I speak negatively about sin, not sinners. It is you that misconstrue my words.

Like I said, you obliviously have a vested interest. Someone you are close to must be a homosexual or you were or are; vested interest.


UNA said:


> You talk like AIDS is a gay disease, you have no way of knowing whether someone has AIDS or is gay.  So in order to avoid either you have to hide in your house!!  Gay people (I suppose you are thinking of gay men in particular here) did not and do not spread AIDS.  AIDS can result from any unprotected sex (or any other type of fluid exchange) homo AND heterosexual.  AIDS=/=Gay and Gay=/=AIDS.


AIDS is not limited to the homosexual community but it was prevalent there in the U.S. before any other.

Choice. I have it. You have it. If you do not like my choices, no one says you have to, but they are mine.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> I chose not to associate with known homosexuals, especially in the area of karate, because to do so could kill me and not by there attack but by accidental exchange of blood.



You could be killed via fluid exchange from anyone; for all you know you're pastor/priest... could have AIDS!



2ndAmendment said:


> I know homosexual behavior is sin. No worse than any other sin, but sin is sin. I speak negatively about sin, not sinners. It is you that misconstrue my words.



Well that's good to know 



2ndAmendment said:


> Like I said, you obliviously have a vested interest. Someone you are close to must be a homosexual or you were or are; vested interest.



Yes I do, but that doesn't matter, I'll defend any victim of prejudice.  It's your right to have that opinion and I'll even defend that.  But it's also my right to tell you that I disagree! 



2ndAmendment said:


> AIDS is not limited to the homosexual community but it was prevalent there in the U.S. before any other.



That may be true, but AIDS is currently more prevalent in the African American community and is also more prevalent among women.  Do you avoid those groups as well?



2ndAmendment said:


> Choice. I have it. You have it. If you do not like my choices, no one says you have to, but they are mine.



And I respect that.  I do not think that sexual preference is a choice, but even if it is; you said it right there.


----------



## Zguy28

UNA said:


> You could be killed via fluid exchange from anyone; for all you know you're pastor/priest... could have AIDS!
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's good to know
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do, but that doesn't matter, I'll defend any victim of prejudice.  It's your right to have that opinion and I'll even defend that.  But it's also my right to tell you that I disagree!
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true, but AIDS is currently more prevalent in the African American community and is also more prevalent among women.  Do you avoid those groups as well?
> 
> 
> 
> And I respect that. * I do not think that sexual preference is a choice, *but even if it is; you said it right there.


I don't believe he said it was or wasn't a choice. I'm sure I know which way he leans, but still.

It looks like you are propping up a strawman.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> You could be killed via fluid exchange from anyone; for all you know you're pastor/priest... could have AIDS!


I don't knowingly exchange any body fluids with anyone other than my wife.



UNA said:


> Yes I do, but that doesn't matter, I'll defend any victim of prejudice. It's your right to have that opinion and I'll even defend that. But it's also my right to tell you that I disagree!


Often, a vested interest is the reason someone, who may have been raised going to church, rejects the Bible and YHWH. They are or know someone who is involved is some favorite sin. Thus, they must reject the Bible that defines the sin and the God that will judge or forgive that sin. This is especially true if that special someone has died having never repented and accepted forgiveness. Then, to believe the Bible, they have to know that their special someone is destine for the lake of fire. I understand that is a tough place to be.


UNA said:


> That may be true, but AIDS is currently more prevalent in the African American community and is also more prevalent among women.  Do you avoid those groups as well?


That is true, but you forgot to qualify the group. The qualifier is those it is prevalent in are those that are having sex outside of marriage and generally are or were prostitutes or got infected by a partner that was infected by a prostitute.

I do not make it a general practice to hang our with prostitutes. Does that make me whoreaphobic?



UNA said:


> And I respect that.  I do not think that sexual preference is a choice, but even if it is; you said it right there.



We will disagree since the natural order is to have male-female reproduction in humans. People may choose to do homosexual acts, but those acts cannot result in reproduction which is the real biological reason for sex. I am not saying sex is not pleasurable (I believe it is pleasurable for a God given reason.), but it is designed for reproduction.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> If you want to call all Christians saints, then by all means I am one. And if that's the case, then don't differentiate between you and them (or me). At any rate, my point is to ask you to beware your pride. Your "us versus them" mentality regarding fellow Christians reveals much. Paul also calls believers "holy ones". Would you say you were holy IS?


If Paul says believers are holy, then I am. Do you understand what he meant by holy? Jesus said for us to be holy as our Father is holy...Are we? 

And what "pride"? Because of my knowledge of the Bible? Can't I be proud of that without YOU thinking I'm full of myself?
Can't I point out doctrinal errors? We're told to; or do you think you know more than some Bible writers? We're here to help each other establish the true meaning of the Word of God, but we can't help those who won't listen...(Ohhhh, that sounds prideful Mr IS!!)   Cast a glance at these, dahhling and then call the writers: "prideful". Pay special attention to v15 (tee hee hee):

1 “Shout it aloud, do not hold back. 
   Raise your voice like a trumpet. 
Declare to my people their rebellion 
   and to the descendants of Jacob their sins. (Isaiah 58)

11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but *rather expose them*. (Ephesians 5)

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 
2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 
3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth...
6 *If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus*, nourished on the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 
7 Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. (1Timothy 4)

 1 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 
2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; *correct, rebuke and encourage*—with great patience and careful instruction. 
3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2Timothy 4)

10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 
11 *They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach*—and that for the sake of dishonest gain (Titus 1)

15 These, then, are the things you should teach. *Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyRadiantone despise you* (Titus 2)

10 So when I come, *I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us* (3 John)


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> If Paul says believers are holy, then I am. Do you understand what he meant by holy? Jesus said for us to be holy as our Father is holy...Are we?
> 
> And what "pride"? Because of my knowledge of the Bible? Can't I be proud of that without YOU thinking I'm full of myself?
> Can't I point out doctrinal errors? We're told to; or do you think you know more than some Bible writers? We're here to help each other establish the true meaning of the Word of God, but we can't help those who won't listen...(Ohhhh, that sounds prideful Mr IS!!)   Cast a glance at these, dahhling and then call the writers: "prideful". Pay special attention to v15 (tee hee hee):



Believers are holy. It is not IS saint versus the aint's as you would have us believe. As I said, you will be judged as well. I do not think you are proud because of your knowledge of the bible (which frankly I think is lacking), but rather because you choose to exalt yourself above other believers. Btw, I do not despise you. To imagine that I do is to once again exalt yourself in light of the scripture passage you quoted. 
__________
Since you are so knowledgable about the bible, you would also recall the following verses:

Psalms 37:11 
But the meek will inherit the land and enjoy great peace 

Psalms 138:6 
Though the LORD is on high, he looks upon the lowly, but the proud he knows from afar. 

Psalms 149:4
For the LORD takes delight in his people; he crowns the humble with salvation. 

Proverbs 3:34 
He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble. 

Proverbs 10:8 
The wise in heart accept commands, but a chattering fool comes to ruin. 

Proverbs 11:2 
When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.

Proverbs 15:31;33
He who listens to a life-giving rebuke will be at home among the wise.The fear of the LORD teaches a man wisdom, and humility comes before honor. 

Proverbs 16:18-19 
Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud. 

Proverbs 18:12
Before his downfall a man's heart is proud, but humility comes before honor. 

Proverbs 21:4 
Haughty eyes and a proud heart, the lamp of the wicked, are sin!

Proverbs 22:4 
Humility and the fear of the LORD bring wealth and honor and life.

Proverbs 25:9 
He guides the humble in what is right and teaches them his way.

Proverbs 26:12 
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.. 

Proverbs 27:2 
Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; someone else, and not your own lips. 

Proverbs 28:25-26 
A greedy man stirs up dissension, but he who trusts in the LORD will prosper. He who trusts in himself is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom is kept safe.

Proverbs 29:23 
A man's pride brings him low, but a man of lowly spirit gains honor.

Isaiah 5:21 
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.

Isaiah 57:15
For this is what the high and lofty One says--he who lives forever, whose name is holy: "I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.

Isaiah 66:2
Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?" declares the LORD. "This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word."

Micah 6:8 
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. 

Matthew 18:3-4 
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 

Matthew 23:12 
For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Luke 14:7-11
When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: "When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, 'Give this man your seat.' Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, 'Friend, move up to a better place.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Luke 16:15 
He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight."

Luke 18:9-14
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." 

Luke 22:24-27 
Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 

Mark 9:35
Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."

John 5:44
How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God 

Romans 12:3
For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. 

Romans 12:16
Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. 

1 Corinthians 3:18
Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 

1 Corinthians 13:4
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 

2 Corinthians 11:30
If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 

Galatians 5:25-26
Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. 

Galatians 5:25-26
Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.  

Ephesians 4:2
Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 
__________

But hey IS, continue to justify your actions and consider yourself a saint and other believers as ain'ts. I've pointed out your error to you. Do with it what you will. It has no bearing on me in the end. :shrug:


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> I don't knowingly exchange any body fluids with anyone other than my wife.



I would hope not...my point is that there is no need to avoid a gay person because "he has AIDS" because if gay=AIDS then so does black and woman.




2ndAmendment said:


> Often, a vested interest is the reason someone, who may have been raised going to church, rejects the Bible and YHWH. They are or know someone who is involved is some favorite sin. Thus, they must reject the Bible that defines the sin and the God that will judge or forgive that sin. This is especially true if that special someone has died having never repented and accepted forgiveness. Then, to believe the Bible, they have to know that their special someone is destine for the lake of fire. I understand that is a tough place to be.



So my gay family member made me deny the Bible...OK...whatever.  I 'deny the Bible' because I don't believe in the creation story nor any of the other miracles.  I questioned the scientific contradictions in the Bible before I was even told my family member was gay and I began to 'deny' it before I even knew there was bigotry concerning gays in it.  I had been, however, made aware of the bigotry against non-believers and women so there you go...blame pagans and women for my 'defiance'.  OR maybe I just don't believe God would condemn someone to hell for was amounts to (at the most) minor sins.



2ndAmendment said:


> That is true, but you forgot to qualify the group. The qualifier is those it is prevalent in are those that are having sex outside of marriage and generally are or were prostitutes or got infected by a partner that was infected by a prostitute.
> 
> I do not make it a general practice to hang our with prostitutes. Does that make me whoreaphobic?



OK, what about the kids who got blood transfusions before we checked for AIDS?  You avoid anyone who may have had a blood transfusion?  You're avoiding the question.  My point is that AIDS has the potential to be everywhere.  Picking one random group out of the demographics will not "save you".



2ndAmendment said:


> We will disagree since the natural order is to have male-female reproduction in humans. People may choose to do homosexual acts, but those acts cannot result in reproduction which is the real biological reason for sex. I am not saying sex is not pleasurable (I believe it is pleasurable for a God given reason.), but it is designed for reproduction.



Oh, I agree completely (well, there's not really anything to agree with since it's a fact that sex is for reproduction).  Homosexual acts go against the natural order since the purpose of life is to procreate.  But, who cares?  Gay people have (unless they adopt or have a surrogate)  chosen not to have kids.  But so have I!  Am I going to hell???


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> It is not IS saint versus the aint's as you would have us believe. As I said, you will be judged as well. I do not think you are proud because of your knowledge of the bible (which frankly I think is lacking), but rather because you choose to exalt yourself above other believers. Btw, I do not despise you. To imagine that I do is to once again exalt yourself in light of the scripture passage you quoted.
> But hey IS, continue to justify your actions and consider yourself a saint and other believers as ain'ts.


I think you should quote some more verses...

It seems to me that your perspective is missing in action. The "aints" are NOT believers, that's why I said God will separate us from them. 

It's not prideful to point out sins and false doctrines, unless it's done in a "self righteous" way. If I'm wrong about anything I've said, you can spend some of eternity chasing me around Heaven saying: I TOLD YOU SO!! Wait...that wouldn't be Heaven would it? Ahhh yes; perspective is a wonderful thing...


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> I would hope not...my point is that there is no need to avoid a gay person because "he has AIDS" because if gay=AIDS then so does black and woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my gay family member made me deny the Bible...OK...whatever.  I 'deny the Bible' because I don't believe in the creation story nor any of the other miracles.  I questioned the scientific contradictions in the Bible before I was even told my family member was gay and I began to 'deny' it before I even knew there was bigotry concerning gays in it.  I had been, however, made aware of the bigotry against non-believers and women so there you go...blame pagans and women for my 'defiance'.  OR maybe I just don't believe God would condemn someone to hell for was amounts to (at the most) minor sins.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, what about the kids who got blood transfusions before we checked for AIDS?  You avoid anyone who may have had a blood transfusion?  You're avoiding the question.  My point is that AIDS has the potential to be everywhere.  Picking one random group out of the demographics will not "save you".
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I agree completely (well, there's not really anything to agree with since it's a fact that sex is for reproduction).  Homosexual acts go against the natural order since the purpose of life is to procreate.  But, who cares?  Gay people have (unless they adopt or have a surrogate)  chosen not to have kids.  But so have I!  Am I going to hell???



I avoid going to homosexually predominant locations just like I stay away from the ladies of the evening. 

I know you read better than that. I think you must just react and post. No where did I say the reason you reject the Bible is because of having a vested interest. I said that that is often the case.

While AIDS has the potential to be everywhere is it predominant among certain demographics. Matter of fact there was a person that is in our congregation that was HIV positive; medically diagnosed. That person repented, was prayed over and was miraculously healed; again, medically proven through tests.  I do not avoid to save myself; Jesus took care of that already. 

All sin is considered the same except one; blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. All sin can be forgiven when forgiveness is sought from God through Jesus except that one.

Whether you are destine for hell or not depends on your relationship with God when you die. As it is now, you judge yourself by your own words by not believing God. You can be forgiven as soon as you quit disagreeing with God and follow His way.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> I think you should quote some more verses...



What I quoted should suffice. 



ItalianScallion said:


> It seems to me that your perspective is missing in action. The "aints" are NOT believers, that's why I said God will separate us from them.



Let me refresh your memory, you and UNA were discussing Christians; however, I'm glad to see you are now including yourself in the judgment to come. That's all I ask.



ItalianScallion said:


> It's not prideful to point out sins and false doctrines, unless it's done in a "self righteous" way.



You were being self-righteous. If you weren't, I wouldn't have called you out on your pride.



ItalianScallion said:


> If I'm wrong about anything I've said, you can spend some of eternity chasing me around Heaven saying: I TOLD YOU SO!! Wait...that wouldn't be Heaven would it? Ahhh yes; perspective is a wonderful thing...



I have no doubt whatsoever that when I reach my eternal life I won't care one whit about saying anything to you regardless of where you or I are.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> I avoid going to homosexually predominant locations just like I stay away from the ladies of the evening.



Well, to each their own I guess...I know there's not really any point in continuing to point out how silly that is since you seem to be convinced gays are on par with prostitutes, drunks and thieves (though I don't get where prostitutes are on par with drunks and thieves either...) :shrug:



2ndAmendment said:


> I know you read better than that. I think you must just react and post. No where did I say the reason you reject the Bible is because of having a vested interest. I said that that is often the case.



Ahem...when someone says:



2ndAmendment said:


> ...Often, a vested interest is the reason someone, who may have been raised going to church, rejects the Bible and YHWH. They are or know someone who is involved is some favorite sin. Thus, they must reject the Bible that defines the sin and the God that will judge or forgive that sin.



it implies that one thinks that I:



2ndAmendment said:


> ...reject the Bible is because of having a vested interest



...must just be me... :shrug:



2ndAmendment said:


> While AIDS has the potential to be everywhere is it predominant among certain demographics.



Again...it is *also* more predominant among women and African Americans...again I say :shrug:



2ndAmendment said:


> Matter of fact there was a person that is in our congregation that was HIV positive; medically diagnosed. That person repented, was prayed over and was miraculously healed; again, medically proven through tests.  I do not avoid to save myself; Jesus took care of that already.



...  ...



2ndAmendment said:


> All sin is considered the same except one; blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. All sin can be forgiven when forgiveness is sought from God through Jesus except that one.



Some would say many Christian churches commit blasphemy... 



2ndAmendment said:


> Whether you are destine for hell or not depends on your relationship with God when you die. As it is now, you judge yourself by your own words by not believing God. You can be forgiven as soon as you quit disagreeing with God and follow His way.



Please tell me, how many times do I need to say that I believe in god, just not god how _you've_ chosen to define him.  Full circle here...again...I am not necessarily disagreeing with god, I am disagreeing with the Bible and as there to no *proof* that it is the word of god.........do I really need to repeat myself?  **See previous posts**


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Well, to each their own I guess...I know there's not really any point in continuing to point out how silly that is since you seem to be convinced gays are on par with prostitutes, drunks and thieves (though I don't get where prostitutes are on par with drunks and thieves either...) :shrug:


 Obviously you do have a problem reading or just don't bother to fully read before reactively posting.

There are many groups and places which each person, including me, choose not to normally hang out. I do not go to bars to drink. I certainly would not knowingly go to a homosexual bar. I would not go cruise areas prostitutes hang out. I would not knowingly go to a thieves hang out; don't even know where such a place might be. I generally would not go somewhere the Hell's Angels or the Pagans hang out.

That does not equate homosexuals to prostitutes to thieves to outlaw bikers.


UNA said:


> Ahem...when someone says:
> 
> 
> it implies that one thinks that I:
> 
> 
> 
> ...must just be me... :shrug:


Yep. When I say, "you," then I mean you. When I say, "one," then it is a general case into which you may or may not fit.



UNA said:


> Again...it is *also* more predominant among women and African Americans...again I say :shrug:


 Agreed, and that is why I introduced the fact that AIDS is prevalent in groups that are generally sexually promiscuous which includes prostitutes.



UNA said:


> ...  ...
> 
> 
> 
> Some would say many Christian churches commit blasphemy...


I agree. The Bible does too.
2 Timothy 4:1-4


> "Preach the Word"
> 1I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:
> 
> 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
> 
> 3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
> 
> 4and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.





> 2 Peter 2:1-3
> 
> 1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
> 
> 2Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;
> 
> 3and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.



There are churches that preach that homosexual behavior is not sin. There are churches that actually ordain homosexual leaders. There are churches that do not teach that Jesus is the Son of God. There are churches that do not believe that the Bible is the word of God. These are all signs of the last days being much closer.


UNA said:


> Please tell me, how many times do I need to say that I believe in god, just not god how _you've_ chosen to define him.  Full circle here...again...I am not necessarily disagreeing with god, I am disagreeing with the Bible and as there to no *proof* that it is the word of god.........do I really need to repeat myself?  **See previous posts**



I believe you  believe in a god. I know from what you post that you do not believe in YHWH, the God. So you do not believe the one true God so you judge yourself. 





> James 2:19You believe that God is one You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.


You don't even believe that God is one by what you post. The demons have greater spiritual knowledge that you. The Bible is the word of God and God has provided proof, even mathematical proof; you choose not to believe it.

Full circle again. Do I really need to repeat myself? **See previous posts**


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> That does not equate homosexuals to prostitutes to thieves to outlaw bikers.



Again: "I don't associate with thieves now gays" implies they are one in the same to you. 



2ndAmendment said:


> Agreed, and that is why I introduced the fact that AIDS is prevalent in groups that are generally sexually promiscuous which includes prostitutes



Women/African American with AIDS =/= promiscuous. 



2ndAmendment said:


> .  There are churches that preach that homosexual behavior is not sin. There are churches that actually ordain homosexual leaders. There are churches that do not teach that Jesus is the Son of God. There are churches that do not believe that the Bible is the word of God. These are all signs of the last days being much closer



I more meant that whole false idol thing WRT showing God's likeness.  



2ndAmendment said:


> .  You don't even believe that God is one by what you post. The demons have greater spiritual knowledge that you. The Bible is the word of God and God has provided proof, even mathematical proof; you choose not to believe it.



You really don't understand the difference between your faith and real world facts. You're right, I don't believe in the Christian God as the Bible describes Him but no one knows what is really true so no one judge other people WRT their beliefs. I don't judge you because your a Christian, I've judged you based on your words and tone.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Again: "I don't associate with thieves now gays" implies they are one in the same to you.


Glad you can read my mind. Can you tell me what the lottery numbers are going to be?


UNA said:


> Women/African American with AIDS =/= promiscuous.


Yes. In general, it does. You don't accept it, but it is fact that they or their partners are promiscuous. 


UNA said:


> I more meant that whole false idol thing WRT showing God's likeness.


Hmm. Only know of one church that does that. Are you attacking Catholics? Radient1, sick her.


UNA said:


> You really don't understand the difference between your faith and real world facts. You're right, I don't believe in the Christian God as the Bible describes Him but no one knows what is really true so no one judge other people WRT their beliefs. I don't judge you because your a Christian, I've judged you based on your words and tone.


Your "real world facts" are not real.

I do not judge you. You judge yourself.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Glad you can read my mind. Can you tell me what the lottery numbers are going to be?



Grow up and please look up the definition of the word 'imply'. 



2ndAmendment said:


> yes. In general, it does. You don't accept it, but it is fact that they or their partners are promiscuous.



Ok, then please go tell the kid that contracted AIDS from a blood transfusion that, I'm sure he/she would love to hear that crap. 



2ndAmendment said:


> Hmm. Only know of one church that does that. Are you attacking Catholics? Radient1, sick her.



No, not Catholics. Any Christian who has crosses, crucifixes, Christmas plays with baby dolls in a manger, passion plays and Mel Gibson  



2ndAmendment said:


> Your "real world facts" are not real.



Seriously? Ok...the sky I'd blue.  or more specifically I suppose, the sky is perceived as  blue to a normal human eye.  1+1=2 ?  here we go again! "if the bible doesn't say it then it's a lie" I suppose. 



2ndAmendment said:


> I do not judge you. You judge yourself.



K


----------



## UNA

nousername said:


> Still not burfoot and preggo yet, huh?



CLEM YOU'RE ALIVE!!!!


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Grow up and please look up the definition of the word 'imply'.







UNA said:


> Ok, then please go tell the kid that contracted AIDS from a blood transfusion that, I'm sure he/she would love to hear that crap.


Grow up and look up the word "predominantly."




UNA said:


> No, not Catholics. Any Christian who has crosses, crucifixes, Christmas plays with baby dolls in a manger, passion plays and Mel Gibson



I don't, in general, see any Christians praying to or worshiping any of those. Graven images has to do with false gods. Again, your misunderstanding or purposeful distortion of scripture.



UNA said:


> Seriously? Ok...the sky I'd blue.  or more specifically I suppose, the sky is perceived as  blue to a normal human eye.  1+1=2 ?  here we go again! "if the bible doesn't say it then it's a lie" I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> K


The "the sky I'd blue?" Huh? Oh. I get it. I'd -> is. 

I believe God created the universe and all the physical laws and relationships in it. Man just studies God's works and tries to figure them out and sometimes gets it right and sometimes gets it wrong. 

Some people rightly attribute God's works to Him and some do not.


----------



## Radiant1

UNA said:


> I more meant that whole false idol thing WRT showing God's likeness.





2ndAmendment said:


> Hmm. Only know of one church that does that. Are you attacking Catholics? Radient1, sick her.



Do wut? 

2A, are you saying the Catholic Church is the only one that uses imagery of God?  You're kidding, right? So, ummm, I take it you don't have an image of Jesus in your home or church? 

UNA, Christianity prohibits the worship of false idols, not necessarily a "graven image" of something that represents our faith. In fact, God even made commands to do create "graven images"...

_Exodus 25:18-22 "You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at one end and one cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends. The cherubim shall have their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings and facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be turned toward the mercy seat. You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony which I will give to you. There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel.

Exodus 26:31-33 31 “Make a curtain of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely twisted linen, with cherubim woven into it by a skilled worker. Hang it with gold hooks on four posts of acacia wood overlaid with gold and standing on four silver bases. Hang the curtain from the clasps and place the ark of the covenant law behind the curtain. The curtain will separate the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place. 

Numbers 21:8-9 And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live._

Now, here's a swift kick in the azz for both of you.


----------



## UNA

Radiant1 said:


> Do wut?
> 
> 2A, are you saying the Catholic Church is the only one that uses imagery of God?  You're kidding, right? So, ummm, I take it you don't have an image of Jesus in your home or church?
> 
> UNA, Christianity prohibits the worship of false idols, not necessarily a "graven image" of something that represents our faith. In fact, God even made commands to do create "graven images"...
> 
> _Exodus 25:18-22 "You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at one end and one cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends. The cherubim shall have their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings and facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be turned toward the mercy seat. You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony which I will give to you. There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel.
> 
> Exodus 26:31-33 31 “Make a curtain of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely twisted linen, with cherubim woven into it by a skilled worker. Hang it with gold hooks on four posts of acacia wood overlaid with gold and standing on four silver bases. Hang the curtain from the clasps and place the ark of the covenant law behind the curtain. The curtain will separate the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place.
> 
> Numbers 21:8-9 And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live._
> 
> Now, here's a swift kick in the azz for both of you.



Aww, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking Catholics. I was just trying to say that no matter what one does; someone will view something as a 'sin' ...even super-Christians like 2nd


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Grow up and look up the word "predominantly."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't, in general, see any Christians praying to or worshiping any of those. Graven images has to do with false gods. Again, your misunderstanding or purposeful distortion of scripture.
> 
> 
> The "the sky I'd blue?" Huh? Oh. I get it. I'd -> is.
> 
> I believe God created the universe and all the physical laws and relationships in it. Man just studies God's works and tries to figure them out and sometimes gets it right and sometimes gets it wrong.
> 
> Some people rightly attribute God's works to Him and some do not.



No matter how I respond you're accusing me of intentionally distorting things. My interpretations don't match yours so in your eyes I'm wrong. Again, there's no point in this because you seem defensive. You're implying things and them getting upset when I respond; accusing me of not reading and choosing to jump on typos because it makes you feel better. Now you're going to respond with a snide comment about how I'm reading you mind or something. 

You are IMPLYING that AIDS is a gay disease and that gays are somehow 'evil' or 'sinful' just like a thief. You're judging a group you obviously know nothing (or little) about. In my eyes, you're just as 'sinful' as a homosexual. Now you'll say we're all sinners so again, no point. Your just 'reading and reacting' so there you go, respond like you've been doing, refusing to even consider the other side (like I've done throughout this thread).


----------



## 2ndAmendment

Radiant1 said:


> Do wut?
> 
> 2A, are you saying the Catholic Church is the only one that uses imagery of God?  You're kidding, right? So, ummm, I take it you don't have an image of Jesus in your home or church?
> 
> UNA, Christianity prohibits the worship of false idols, not necessarily a "graven image" of something that represents our faith. In fact, God even made commands to do create "graven images"...
> 
> _Exodus 25:18-22 "You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at one end and one cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends. The cherubim shall have their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings and facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be turned toward the mercy seat. You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony which I will give to you. There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel.
> 
> Exodus 26:31-33 31 “Make a curtain of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely twisted linen, with cherubim woven into it by a skilled worker. Hang it with gold hooks on four posts of acacia wood overlaid with gold and standing on four silver bases. Hang the curtain from the clasps and place the ark of the covenant law behind the curtain. The curtain will separate the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place.
> 
> Numbers 21:8-9 And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live._
> 
> Now, here's a swift kick in the azz for both of you.



I think there are a few prints of paintings, but no Jesus hanging on a cross that we genuflect to. Nor do we have statues of people that we kneel and pray before.

I agree that there are several instances where God commanded certain images to be made but not as gods.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> No matter how I respond you're accusing me of intentionally distorting things. My interpretations don't match yours so in your eyes I'm wrong. Again, there's no point in this because you seem defensive. You're implying things and them getting upset when I respond; accusing me of not reading and choosing to jump on typos because it makes you feel better. Now you're going to respond with a snide comment about how I'm reading you mind or something.
> 
> You are IMPLYING that AIDS is a gay disease and that gays are somehow 'evil' or 'sinful' just like a thief. You're judging a group you obviously know nothing (or little) about. In my eyes, you're just as 'sinful' as a homosexual. Now you'll say we're all sinners so again, no point. Your just 'reading and reacting' so there you go, respond like you've been doing, refusing to even consider the other side (like I've done throughout this thread).



For me, there is not other side to consider, nor did I ever lend any credence to an idea that I was open to your trying to disparage the Bible.

You do not believe in the Word of God. You do not believe in the God of the Bible. I accept that. Then, by my belief in the God of the Bible and the Bible, I make certain assertions that are truth according to the Bible. One of which is homosexual behavior is sin. Not my definition but that of the God of the Bible whom I believe wholeheartedly.

We will not agree until you believe that the God of the Bible is the One True God and that the Bible is the word of God. Until then, your viewpoint while valid for you, has absolutely no meaning to me.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> 2A, are you saying the Catholic Church is the only one that uses imagery of God?  You're kidding, right? So, ummm, I take it you don't have an image of Jesus in your home or church?
> _Exodus 25:18-22 "You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at one end and one cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends. The cherubim shall have their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings and facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be turned toward the mercy seat. You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony which I will give to you. There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel.
> 
> Exodus 26:31-33 31 “Make a curtain of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely twisted linen, with cherubim woven into it by a skilled worker. Hang it with gold hooks on four posts of acacia wood overlaid with gold and standing on four silver bases. Hang the curtain from the clasps and place the ark of the covenant law behind the curtain. The curtain will separate the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place.
> 
> Numbers 21:8-9 And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live._


Lady friend you are soooooo confused! How do you get dressed each day? There's not one Scripture reference to bowing down and worshipping those things. The Ark of the Covenant, the curtain nor the Caduceus were to be worshipped. The HOH & MHP sanctuary was simply used as an altar in the OT. No one bowed down to it. Show me one Scripture verse where God said for anyone to bow down to anything except Himself... 

Most protestant churches have only a cross in them and, unlike your church, the people don't come in and bow down (genuflect) to it. They look at the cross and remember what Jesus did on it for us; nothing more. We don't pray to it nor do we walk up and kiss it either...


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> For me, there is not other side to consider, nor did I ever lend any credence to an idea that I was open to your trying to disparage the Bible.
> 
> You do not believe in the Word of God. You do not believe in the God of the Bible. I accept that. Then, by my belief in the God of the Bible and the Bible, I make certain assertions that are truth according to the Bible. One of which is homosexual behavior is sin. Not my definition but that of the God of the Bible whom I believe wholeheartedly.
> 
> We will not agree until you believe that the God of the Bible is the One True God and that the Bible is the word of God. Until then, your viewpoint while valid for you, has absolutely no meaning to me.



Geez! I'm not disparaging the Bible! I asked questions and people assumed things about me. Not my fault if people can't handle a few questions, I'm not going to be quoted at and just fall to my knees in praise. That's not how things work. And I'm not disparaging the Bible by saying maybe gays aren't evil!

OK, Nevermind. Unless you have anything to actually add I give up. See ya 'round and blessed be!


----------



## Radiant1

2ndAmendment said:


> I think there are a few prints of paintings, but no Jesus hanging on a cross that we genuflect to. Nor do we have statues of people that we kneel and pray before.
> 
> I agree that there are several instances where God commanded certain images to be made but not as gods.



So, you make use of religious imagery as well, and we agree that images are not to be worshiped as gods. 



ItalianScallion said:


> Lady friend you are soooooo confused! How do you get dressed each day? There's not one Scripture reference to bowing down and worshipping those things. The Ark of the Covenant, the curtain nor the Caduceus were to be worshipped. The HOH & MHP sanctuary was simply used as an altar in the OT. No one bowed down to it. Show me one Scripture verse where God said for anyone to bow down to anything except Himself...



You seem to think that bowing before something or someone necessarily indicates worship. Do you think one is worshiping the queen of England when one bows or curtsies before her? By your way of thinking, you yourself worship the air when you kneel and pray, or perhaps it's the bible that you hold in your hand instead. 

The things in and of themselves are not to be worshiped. No Catholic worships the cross or a statue, they make religious use of it. You know, kind of like Moses and the Israelites did with that bronze serpent. And, read Exodus 25:18-22 again...*very carefully*, for you are making a grave mistake. It's the "Holy of Holies" for a reason. Think about it.



ItalianScallion said:


> Most protestant churches have only a cross in them and, unlike your church, the people don't come in and bow down (genuflect) to it. *They look at the cross and remember what Jesus did on it for us; nothing more*. We don't pray to it nor do we walk up and kiss it either...



Catholics pray before an object, not to it. The act of genuflecting before a cross is more than rememberance and a passing thought. It's ACTING and MAKING MOVEMENT towards Christ with whom we owe our life. He's far more worthy than a passing thought!

I'm also guessing you would never kiss the bible that you revere so much, or perhaps even your wife if you had one. I mean, you wouldn't want to be accused of worshiping either now would you? 

You both are correct in condemning idolatry, the Catholic Church has been doing so for 2000 years. However, you may want to think twice before condemning the religious use of "graven images", for surely you would also be condemning Moses, King David, Ezekiel, and as a result, God Himself.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> You seem to think that bowing before something or someone necessarily indicates worship. Do you think one is worshiping the queen of England when one bows or curtsies before her? By your way of thinking, you yourself worship the air when you kneel and pray, or perhaps it's the bible that you hold in your hand instead.


Not at all. I used to bow to my opponent when I was practicing Karate, but I surely didn't worship him. While I cannot speak for those who bow to the Queen, I can speak to the worship of your pope. The people worship him in words and actions and that cannot be denied...What do they call him? 

Worship the air??? What ARE you puffing on today little lady? 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> The things in and of themselves are not to be worshiped. No Catholic worships the cross or a statue, they make religious use of it. You know, kind of like Moses and the Israelites did with that bronze serpent. And, read Exodus 25:18-22 again...*very carefully*, for you are making a grave mistake. It's the "Holy of Holies" for a reason. Think about it.


It doesn't say, anywhere, that they worshipped the Ark. If they bowed, they bowed to God's presence there and that's totally fine because ONLY God is to be worshipped. 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Catholics pray before an object, not to it. The act of genuflecting before a cross is more than rememberance and a passing thought. It's ACTING and MAKING MOVEMENT towards Christ with whom we owe our life. He's far more worthy than a passing thought!


"Catholics pray before an object, not to it"??? 
Hail Mary full of grace, 
a prayer to St Anthony for a lost object, 
St Christopher for a safe ride, 
St Joseph so that a house might sell,
Prayers to "patron saints"...Shall I go on? 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> I'm also guessing you would never kiss the bible that you revere so much, or perhaps even your wife if you had one. I mean, you wouldn't want to be accused of worshiping either now would you?


I've never kissed my Bible, nor have I bowed to it, nor have I made a shrine and worshipped it there. Why would I? If someone burns a Bible I wouldn't try to kill them. God will deal with them later, and much worse than I ever could.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> You both are correct in condemning idolatry, the Catholic Church has been doing so for 2000 years. However, you may want to think twice before condemning the religious use of "graven images", for surely you would also be condemning Moses, King David, Ezekiel, and as a result, God Himself.


 None of them prayed to or bowed to an idol. Do you have examples of it happening and God approving of it? 

And btw, please address why the RCC does NOT have the 2nd commandment in their catechisms. I asked you about that last month and I'm STILL waiting to hear from you on it.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Not at all. *I used to bow to my opponent when I was practicing Karate, but I surely didn't worship him.* While I cannot speak for those who bow to the Queen, I can speak to the worship of your pope. The people worship him in words and actions and that cannot be denied...What do they call him?
> 
> Worship the air??? What ARE you puffing on today little lady?



The part in bold is all I need to hear.

The Pope is called many things. Successor of Peter, bishop of Rome, servant of the servants of Christ, patriarch of the West, holy father, and very simply pope or poppa. If you fancy you see worship in those titles, then I suggest you don't call anyone by their title. You know, like President, Senator, Mayor, Teacher, or simply Sir. And for heaven's sake don't you dare call your dad "father"! 



ItalianScallion said:


> It doesn't say, anywhere, that they worshipped the Ark. *If they bowed, they bowed to God's presence there and that's totally fine because ONLY God is to be worshipped.*



Uh huh, and if bowing denotes worship then you worshiped your karate opponents. 



ItalianScallion said:


> "Catholics pray before an object, not to it"???
> Hail Mary full of grace,
> a prayer to St Anthony for a lost object,
> St Christopher for a safe ride,
> St Joseph so that a house might sell,
> Prayers to "patron saints"...Shall I go on?



Are you calling people objects and saying intercessory prayer is idolatry??? Think very carefully before you answer that. 



ItalianScallion said:


> I've never kissed my Bible, nor have I bowed to it, nor have I made a shrine and worshipped it there. Why would I? If someone burns a Bible I wouldn't try to kill them. God will deal with them later, and much worse than I ever could.



And what of your wife if you had one?

You might want to pay reverence to the Word of God that is found in the bible, you know, in at least as much respect you paid to your Karate opponents by bowing before them. Fancy that, Catholics show more reverence for the Word of God than a so-called bible-only Christian, go figure.



ItalianScallion said:


> *None of them prayed to or bowed to an idol.* Do you have examples of it happening and God approving of it?



Of course not, and Catholics don't either; however, we do make use of imagery just as Moses, King David, and Ezekiel did. Again, you have need to be very careful of your accusations, because ultimately you make the accusation against God.



ItalianScallion said:


> And btw, please address why the RCC does NOT have the 2nd commandment in their catechisms. I asked you about that last month and I'm STILL waiting to hear from you on it.



That was already addressed as well. However, to sum it up Exodus 20:2-17 has 14 imperative statements. Jews and Christians combine them to 10. It goes to REASON that the first commandment "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me" includes the prohibition of idolatry. If you have need to take issue with the numbering, then by all means take issue with the Jews and Lutherans as well...oh yeah, and the Orthodox, and even the Reformers who have to add a preface to the 10 actually making it 11. Frankly, if you're only reciting 10 commandments, then you need to take issue with yourself because, well, to do so is not to directly recite the scriptures now is it.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> The Pope is called many things. Successor of Peter, bishop of Rome, servant of the servants of Christ, patriarch of the West, holy father, and very simply pope or poppa. If you fancy you see worship in those titles, then I suggest you don't call anyone by their title. You know, like President, Senator, Mayor, Teacher, or simply Sir. And for heaven's sake don't you dare call your dad "father"!


Holy father is the one I have a problem with. That title was reserved ONLY for God the Father. It was used only by Jesus in John 17v11 and nowhere else in the NT, for a reason. It was not to be used on anyone else.

And go ahead my dear and tell me that no Catholic bows to him or kisses his ring or hand or reveres him as a Deity on earth. You cannot deny that there is serious papal worship in the RCC.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Uh huh, and if bowing denotes worship then you worshiped your karate opponents.


You can worship someone without bowing to them.
You can bow to someone without worshipping them.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Are you calling people objects and saying intercessory prayer is idolatry??? Think very carefully before you answer that.


Thinking. Thinking. Thinking. Thinking. All done-The issue here is praying to DEAD people. DEAD people. DEAD people.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> And what of your wife if you had one?
> You might want to pay reverence to the Word of God that is found in the bible, you know, in at least as much respect you paid to your Karate opponents by bowing before them. Fancy that, Catholics show more reverence for the Word of God than a so-called bible-only Christian, go figure.


What of my wife?? 
I DO revere the Bible; very much, but I'm never told to bow to it or worship it.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Of course not, and Catholics don't either; however, we do make use of imagery just as Moses, King David, and Ezekiel did.


That is an obviously wrong statement Radiant1. You need to re-visit that one. You're denying a BIG and well known part of the RCC's doctrines and practices. 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> That was already addressed as well. However, to sum it up Exodus 20:2-17 has 14 imperative statements. Jews and Christians combine them to 10. It goes to REASON that the first commandment "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me" includes the prohibition of idolatry. If you have need to take issue with the numbering, then by all means take issue with the Jews and Lutherans as well...oh yeah, and the Orthodox, and even the Reformers who have to add a preface to the 10 actually making it 11. Frankly, if you're only reciting 10 commandments, then you need to take issue with yourself because, well, to do so is not to directly recite the scriptures now is it.


Jews & Christians got it right with 10, that's why. You're proving again that you won't take God's Word over what you've been taught? The issue is not how many, but the elimination of #2 by the RCC so they can continue their graven image sales without the guilt that #2 brought them. See? I remember the 10 very well from my school years. As a kid, I always wondered why the 10 I was taught differed from the 10 in the Bible...

Ok now. There are only 10 Commandments. Those other "imperatives" are included in the 10 Commandments. How do we know that there are 10? God and the Bible say so. Check these out my dear:

28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—*the Ten Commandments* (Exodus 34)

13 He declared to you his covenant, *the Ten Commandments*, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets.(Deut 4)

4 The LORD wrote on these tablets what he had written before, *the Ten Commandments* he had proclaimed to you on the mountain, out of the fire, on the day of the assembly. And the LORD gave them to me. (Deut 10)

Does anyone here see 14? Radiant1, although I love talking to you about these things, I hope you see the problem with taking anyone's word over God's. If it wasn't for the Bible, we'd have NO standard for truth. Use it! Stop fighting with God. It will only get you in more trouble...


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> ... The Pope is called many things. Successor of Peter, bishop of Rome, servant of the servants of Christ, patriarch of the West, holy father, and very simply pope or poppa. If you fancy you see worship in those titles, then I suggest you don't call anyone by their title. You know, like President, Senator, Mayor, Teacher, or simply Sir...




The title of *"Vicar of Christ"* is one that exalts the papal office to a position that belongs only to the Holy Spirit of God; the True Vicar of Christ upon this earth:


(article excerpts)


> 'For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition (Washington, DC: US Catholic Conference, 1994, 1997) #882.]
> 
> [Definition: “vicar”—in the broadest sense means someone who is authorized to act as a substitute or agent for a superior / compare “vicarious”—serving in the place of someone else; assuming the position, place, or office of another person]
> 
> The world again has a man in the position of “Vicar of Christ,” so it is biblically imperative to examine the true office of the Vicar of Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ entrusted the universal care of souls into the safekeeping of the Divine Person of the Holy Spirit. Concerning this Third Person of the Trinity who was to be His substitute, the Lord promised that, “when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:8). The Holy Spirit convicts of sin as He makes the sinner realize his lost condition and convicts him of his need of Christ's righteousness. He it is who brings a soul dead in sin to life.
> 
> This miracle of grace is spoken of in Scripture as, “the exceeding greatness of His power to usward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power, which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead” (Ephesians 1:19).
> 
> The majesty, greatness and indescribable power of the true office of Vicar of Christ are such that a believer stands in awe of His divine Person. *That any human being should lay claim to the office of Vicar of Christ seems totally absurd and blasphemous.*
> THE POPE OR THE HOLY SPIRIT - Who is the true &ldquo;Vicar of Christ&rdquo;? - ChristianAnswers.Net



*There Is Only One Truth*


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Holy father is the one I have a problem with. That title was reserved ONLY for God the Father. It was used only by Jesus in John 17v11 and nowhere else in the NT, for a reason. It was not to be used on anyone else.



Are you sure? *You already said in this thread that you are holy*. So, it's ok for you but not the pope. Heh. 



ItalianScallion said:


> And go ahead my dear and tell me that no Catholic bows to him or kisses his ring or hand or reveres him as a Deity on earth. You cannot deny that there is serious papal worship in the RCC.



I'll tell you that some bow to him and some kiss his hand. I have bowed to my bf and also kissed his hand, does that mean I worship him? I will also tell you that no one considers the pope a god. I'm sorry but as much as you may want it to be true to suit your needs and biases, it's just not. 



ItalianScallion said:


> You can worship someone without bowing to them.
> You can bow to someone without worshipping them.



Exactly!



ItalianScallion said:


> Thinking. Thinking. Thinking. Thinking. All done-The issue here is praying to DEAD people. DEAD people. DEAD people.



And here I thought you were a Christian who believed in *eternal life*. I guess not. 



ItalianScallion said:


> What of my wife??



The question was, would you kiss her? And if so, would that be an act of worship? Let me answer for you, of course not.



ItalianScallion said:


> I DO revere the Bible; very much, but I'm never told to bow to it or worship it.



You're right. You're not told to worship it. However, we've already established that bowing or even kissing does not necessarily denote worship, so you may want to show a bit more respect for the Word of God than you do. As for me, I kiss my bible reverently.



ItalianScallion said:


> That is an obviously wrong statement Radiant1. You need to re-visit that one. You're denying a BIG and well known part of the RCC's doctrines and practices.



Umm, no it's not. Again, as much as you may want your accusation to be true, it's just not.



ItalianScallion said:


> Jews & Christians got it right with 10, that's why. You're proving again that you won't take God's Word over what you've been taught? The issue is not how many, but the elimination of #2 by the RCC so they can continue their graven image sales without the guilt that #2 brought them. See? I remember the 10 very well from my school years. As a kid, I always wondered why the 10 I was taught differed from the 10 in the Bible...



If we have it right with 10, then we have it right now don't we. The question is, the order of them. You want to ascribe some sort of sinister motivation for the way Catholics list them; however, Lutherans also use the same 10 that Catholics do. Lutherans don't use religious imagery like Catholics do, so what do you suppose their motivation was? 



ItalianScallion said:


> Ok now. There are only 10 Commandments. Those other "imperatives" are included in the 10 Commandments. How do we know that there are 10? God and the Bible say so. Check these out my dear:
> 
> 28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—*the Ten Commandments* (Exodus 34)
> 
> 13 He declared to you his covenant, *the Ten Commandments*, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets.(Deut 4)
> 
> 4 The LORD wrote on these tablets what he had written before, *the Ten Commandments* he had proclaimed to you on the mountain, out of the fire, on the day of the assembly. And the LORD gave them to me. (Deut 10)



Weeee! We all have 10, yay!! 



ItalianScallion said:


> Does anyone here see 14? Radiant1, although I love talking to you about these things, I hope you see the problem with taking anyone's word over God's. If it wasn't for the Bible, we'd have NO standard for truth. Use it! Stop fighting with God. It will only get you in more trouble...



I weigh everything I'm told by anyone, yourself included, by prayer, reason and logic, what I read in scripture, from what I know from my own personal experience with Christ. I still stand where I do.

IS, I think we can see from this small discussion how utterly petty you are when it comes to your anti-Catholic bigotry. You can say we are idolators until you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it true. In fact, the more you say it the more you may be in trouble with God, which is why I told you to think very carefully before making accusations.

I mean really, that's like me accusing you of worshiping your Karate opponents simply because you bow before them. How stupid.


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> The title of *"Vicar of Christ"* is one that exalts the papal office to a position that belongs only to the Holy Spirit of God; the True Vicar of Christ upon this earth:
> 
> 
> (article excerpts)
> 
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth*



Durp durp!! 

Compliments of the freedictionary.com:
vic·ar (vkr)
n. Abbr. Vic.
1. a. The priest of a parish in the Church of England who receives a stipend or salary but does not receive the tithes of a parish.
b. A cleric in charge of a chapel in the Episcopal Church of the United States.
c. A cleric acting in the place of a rector or bishop in the Anglican Communion generally.
2. Roman Catholic Church A priest who acts for or represents another, often higher-ranking member of the clergy.

Hey, guess what Starman? As much as you represent Jesus on this forum, you too are a vicar of Christ!!


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Durp durp!!
> 
> Compliments of the freedictionary.com:
> vic·ar (vkr)
> n. Abbr. Vic.
> 1. a. The priest of a parish in the Church of England who receives a stipend or salary but does not receive the tithes of a parish.
> b. A cleric in charge of a chapel in the Episcopal Church of the United States.
> c. A cleric acting in the place of a rector or bishop in the Anglican Communion generally.
> 2. Roman Catholic Church A priest who acts for or represents another, often higher-ranking member of the clergy.
> 
> Hey, guess what Starman? As much as you represent Jesus on this forum, you too are a vicar of Christ!!



Um...there's a big difference between a person being a "representative" little "r" as a follower of Christ and a REPRESENTATIVE (big "R") whom the pope is believed to be by Catholics.  I mean, the papacy is the one you look to for interpreting anything theological as his office is the "one" that speaks infallibly, sets guidelines and introduces extra-Biblical teachings that Catholics are expected to believe.

The papal office is given great reverence that elevates this position to being "adored" and "bowed to" by faithful Catholics when that honor only belongs to God.  This is what Jesus spoke of when He warned His disciples of the "religious leaders" who would put on a show of religiosity:



> Matthew 23
> 
> 1. Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
> 
> 2. Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
> 
> 3. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
> 
> 4. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
> 
> 5. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
> 
> 6. And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
> 
> 7. And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
> 
> 8. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
> 
> 9. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
> 
> 10. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.



*There Is Only One Truth* (John 14:6)


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Geez! I'm not disparaging the Bible! I asked questions and people assumed things about me. Not my fault if people can't handle a few questions, I'm not going to be quoted at and just fall to my knees in praise. That's not how things work. And I'm not disparaging the Bible by saying maybe gays aren't evil!
> 
> OK, Nevermind. Unless you have anything to actually add I give up. See ya 'round and blessed be!





> 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 (New American Standard Bible)
> 
> The Wisdom of God
> 18For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
> 
> 19For it is written,
> "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
> AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."
> 
> 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
> 
> 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
> 
> 22For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;
> 
> 23but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
> 
> 24but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
> 
> 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.


...


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> Are you sure? *You already said in this thread that you are holy*. So, it's ok for you but not the pope. Heh. I'll tell you that some bow to him and some kiss his hand. I have bowed to my bf and also kissed his hand, does that mean I worship him? *I will also tell you that no one considers the pope a god*. I'm sorry but as much as you may want it to be true to suit your needs and biases, it's just not.


You & your bf; Apples & oranges my dear lady. If you don't see that Jesus used this title for God the Father only, I'll never convince you of it... 
I'll bet I could ask 10 devout Catholics on the street what they think of their pope and you'd be the only one with your perspective. He is a god to them. Deny it all you want; it doesn't change anything.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> And here I thought you were a Christian who believed in *eternal life*. I guess not.


You just don't get it about prayers to the dead do you?


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> You're right. You're not told to worship it. However, we've already established that bowing or even kissing does not necessarily denote worship, so you may want to show a bit more respect for the Word of God than you do. As for me, I kiss my bible reverently.


Why? You said you don't believe very much of it.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> If we have it right with 10, then we have it right now don't we. The question is, the order of them. You want to ascribe some sort of sinister motivation for the way Catholics list them; however, Lutherans also use the same 10 that Catholics do. Lutherans don't use religious imagery like Catholics do, so what do you suppose their motivation was?


I'm not a Lutheran so you'd have to ask them. And no, actually you don't have it right with 10. Where's the graven images one? In Catholic school I was taught the 10. There was never a graven image commandment but the last 2 were "do not covet" ones. I've looked online at Catholic websites so there would be no bias and their 10 are exactly what I was taught and what I've said here. I won't beat this to death any more, but facts are facts.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> IS, I think we can see from this small discussion how utterly petty you are when it comes to your anti-Catholic bigotry. You can say we are idolators until you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it true. In fact, the more you say it the more you may be in trouble with God, which is why I told you to think very carefully before making accusations.


What I see is your refusal to listen to the truth because of your pride and ignorance. No offense intended. You have no absolute source of truth without the entire Bible. Anyone can pray and say that God spoke to them. Muslims do it and look where it leads them. The proof is if what they heard agrees with Scripture. If it doesn't...


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Um...there's a big difference between a person being a "representative" little "r" as a follower of Christ and a REPRESENTATIVE (big "R") whom the pope is believed to be by Catholics.  I mean, the papacy is the one you look to for interpreting anything theological as his office is the "one" that speaks infallibly, sets guidelines and introduces extra-Biblical teachings that Catholics are expected to believe.
> 
> The papal office is given great reverence that elevates this position to being "adored" and "bowed to" by faithful Catholics when that honor only belongs to God.  This is what Jesus spoke of when He warned His disciples of the "religious leaders" who would put on a show of religiosity:
> 
> 
> 
> *There Is Only One Truth* (John 14:6)



Have you seriously reduced this to little r and big R?? 



ItalianScallion said:


> You & your bf; Apples & oranges my dear lady.



No, it's not apples and oranges; it's very relevent to the discussion at hand actually.  I'm sorry if you just want to sweep away the example, but it remains.



ItalianScallion said:


> If you don't see that Jesus used this title for God the Father only, I'll never convince you of it...



You're right. You will never convince me of it because...

St. Paul says in 1Cor 15 - _Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, *for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel*. _

And, here's Peter who calls Mark his son which most certainly implies he thought of himself as a spiritual father 1Peter 5:13 - _The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, *as does Mark, my son*. _

Here's John calling people "my children", which again implies he most certainly thought of himself as their spiritual father, 1John 2:1 - _*My children*, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one. _And again he says such in 3John 4 - _Nothing gives me greater joy than to hear that *my children *are walking in the truth._

So, you already established that believers are holy. The apostles were holy, they also considered themselves spiritual fathers; therefore, they are holy fathers. For the sake of Christ Jesus and your own, use a bit of rationale.



ItalianScallion said:


> I'll bet I could ask 10 devout Catholics on the street what they think of their pope and you'd be the only one with your perspective. He is a god to them. Deny it all you want; it doesn't change anything.



Well, you can say it all you want, it doesn't change anything. :shrug:

I challenge anyone to ask 10 Catholics if they think the pope is a god. I am quite confident their answer will be *NO*, and then they might look at you as if you are a retarded.



ItalianScallion said:


> You just don't get it about prayers to the dead do you?



They're not dead if they live in Heaven now are they. If you don't get what eternal life means, then you have no right to call yourself a Christian. For the sake of Christ Jesus and your own, use a bit of rationale.



ItalianScallion said:


> Why? You said you don't believe very much of it.



You just sank to a new low. I never said such a thing, nor would I. Do not ever put words into my mouth. What I don't believe are some of your particular interpretations, and with good reason. I realize that you think Catholics don't read the bible, let alone revere it; however, you are wrong. Kindly do not insult me personally in an attempt to cling to the much beloved misconceptions that you like to spread to others.



ItalianScallion said:


> I'm not a Lutheran so you'd have to ask them. And no, actually you don't have it right with 10. Where's the graven images one? In Catholic school I was taught the 10. There was never a graven image commandment but the last 2 were "do not covet" ones. I've looked online at Catholic websites so there would be no bias and their 10 are exactly what I was taught and what I've said here. I won't beat this to death any more, but facts are facts.



You didn't answer the question. If Catholics have some sort of sinister motivation, then what motivation do the Lutherans have who also use the same 10? There is no sinister motivation. It stands to reason that to have no other god before the God of Abraham is to not worship idols. It really is that simple.

For the sake of Christ Jesus and your own, use a bit of rationale.

I'm so glad you won't beat this anymore, for you're right. The facts are the facts, and I have sufficiently proven them. You are just being a ridiculous, irrational bigot.



ItalianScallion said:


> What I see is your refusal to listen to the truth because of your pride and ignorance. No offense intended. You have no absolute source of truth without the entire Bible. Anyone can pray and say that God spoke to them. Muslims do it and look where it leads them. The proof is if what they heard agrees with Scripture. If it doesn't...



What I said was: 



> I weigh everything I'm told by anyone, yourself included, by prayer, reason and logic, what I read in scripture, from what I know from my own personal experience with Christ. I still stand where I do.
> 
> IS, I think we can see from this small discussion how utterly petty you are when it comes to your anti-Catholic bigotry. You can say we are idolators until you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it true. In fact, the more you say it the more you may be in trouble with God, which is why I told you to think very carefully before making accusations.
> 
> I mean really, that's like me accusing you of worshiping your Karate opponents simply because you bow before them. How stupid.



Did you not notice that I also said, "what I read in scripture"? I'm guessing you cut that part out in order to create a strawman. And frankly, I'm rather astonished that you feel the need to delineate prayer in an attempt to prove a point, that reeks of desperation IS. One can only assume by your own words that your own prayer has no efficacy. Heh.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Have you seriously reduced this to little r and big R??



Yep. as a matter of fact you should understand this as well.  Even within the ranks of the RCC do you not consider the authority of the papacy as the Big "R" when compared to those with the lesser offices and titles?  Lest why all the pomp and circumstance over the papal position?

In the eyes of God, we are all equally sinners and are saved by His Grace alone if it is that one has placed faith in the New Testament Jesus Christ.  We are no better than one another in our position with God.  The RCC, however, views the papal office as "THE REPRESENTATIVE" of God's Authority.  Does not the term "Vicar of Christ" which is given to the pope give him a higher position and standing with God than yours?


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> Yep. as a matter of fact you should understand this as well.  *Even within the ranks of the RCC do you not consider the authority of the papacy as the Big "R" when compared to those with the lesser offices and titles? * Lest why all the pomp and circumstance over the papal position?



No. There's "pomp and circumstance" at Mass with Eucharist every week too. Heck, didn't this part of the conversation get started over our "pomp and circumstance" over the crucifix? Why yes, I think it did.



Starman3000m said:


> In the eyes of God, we are all equally sinners and are saved by His Grace alone if it is that one has placed faith in the New Testament Jesus Christ.  We are no better than one another in our position with God.  The RCC, however, views the papal office as "THE REPRESENTATIVE" of God's Authority.  *Does not the term "Vicar of Christ" which is given to the pope give him a higher position and standing with God than yours?*



No. The pope will be judged just like you and me. As I said, you too are a vicar of Christ. Btw, the pope confesses his sins weekly. He obviously knows he's a sinner. 

I'm so happy to dispell you of your ignorance Starman.


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> No. There's "pomp and circumstance" at Mass with Eucharist every week too. Heck, didn't this part of the conversation get started over our "pomp and circumstance" over the crucifix? Why yes, I think it did.
> 
> 
> 
> No. The pope will be judged just like you and me. As I said, you too are a vicar of Christ. Btw, the pope confesses his sins weekly. He obviously knows he's a sinner.
> 
> I'm so happy to dispell you of your ignorance Starman.



LOL

Please dispell more of my ignorance.  Does the pope pray to Mary? Who does the pope confess his sins to?

Also: When you are out in public, do people surround you, bow to you and come up and kiss your hand (if your security guards let them get close enough to you)?  lol

According to the Holy Bible, The Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ; born-again followers of Jesus are "Children of God".


----------



## Radiant1

Starman3000m said:


> LOL
> 
> Please dispell more of my ignorance.  Does the pope pray to Mary? Who does the pope confess his sins to?



Sure, he prays to Mary asking for her intecession and I'm sure he does with a lot of other people too, just like billions of other Christians around the world.

He confesses his sins to God, just like the rest of us. The fact that he actually takes ACTION by going to a confessional to do it actually speaks highly of his humility, and anyone who does so for that matter. I mean really, saying your sorry and actually being sorry are two different things. If one is truly sorry for their sins, they will take action and do something about it.



Starman3000m said:


> Also: When you are out in public, do people surround you, bow to you and come up and kiss your hand (if your security guards let them get close enough to you)?  lol



No, but I'm not exactly a public figure like the pope, president, queen, etc. Are you trying to say that the pope, president, or queen for example WON'T be judged like the rest of us? If so, then perhaps you are creating the idols. 



Starman3000m said:


> According to the Holy Bible, The Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ; born-again followers of Jesus are "Children of God".



Yes, ok. And, what pray tell does the Holy Spirit do but work in and with the children of God?

Btw, by your own standard you should be careful about capitalizing the C in children. We wouldn't want you to elevate any of us higher than we really are now would we?


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1, do you think the Pope would be offended or even mildly upset if you greeted him face to face with a simple "Hello Joseph" or "Hi Mr. Ratzinger"?


----------



## PsyOps

Zguy28 said:


> Radiant1, do you think the Pope would be offended or even mildly upset if you greeted him face to face with a simple "Hello Joseph" or "Hi Mr. Ratzinger"?


----------



## Radiant1

Zguy28 said:


> Radiant1, do you think the Pope would be offended or even mildly upset if you greeted him face to face with a simple "Hello Joseph" or "Hi Mr. Ratzinger"?



Not in the least. I think he'd smile and say "Well hello Radiant1." As it happens, I have more respect for the office and the man than that, but even so. I also have no doubt that there are those who are very familiar with him in person such as family, friends, teachers and the like who call him Joe.

What do you suppose the president would do if you called him dude? Probably the same thing, although I have a feeling you wouldn't call him that.


----------



## Bird Dog

Zguy28 said:


> Radiant1, do you think the Pope would be offended or even mildly upset if you greeted him face to face with a simple "Hello Joseph" or "Hi Mr. Ratzinger"?



That is about the stupidest thing I have ever seen you post.


----------



## Zguy28

Radiant1 said:


> Not in the least. I think he'd smile and say "Well hello Radiant1." As it happens, I have more respect for the office and the man than that, but even so. I also have no doubt that there are those who are very familiar with him in person such as family, friends, teachers and the like who call him Joe.
> 
> What do you suppose the president would do if you called him dude? Probably the same thing, although I have a feeling you wouldn't call him that.


I just want to know if you kiss his ring, does it go ZING!





Bird Dog said:


> That is about the stupidest thing I have ever seen you post.


Do your chickens have large talons?


----------



## Starman3000m

Radiant1 said:


> Sure, he prays to Mary asking for her intecession and I'm sure he does with a lot of other people too, just like billions of other *Catholics *around the world.



According to The Holy Bible, there is *no proof* that Mary was ever "assumed bodily" nor that she is anywhere next to Jesus in Heaven hearing prayers, interceding on your behalf and allowing souls into Heaven.  Even the RCC admits that there is no Biblical proof.  So if Mary is not really in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Mediatrix," "Benefactress," "Advocate," etc. then all the adorations, prayers and petitions to Mary are in vain and parishioners are being sidetracked from directing their prayers directly to God through Jesus.



Radiant1 said:


> He confesses his sins to God, just like the rest of us.



So, you agree that in the RCC faith no priest is therefore needed to confess your sins? One can go directly to God (just like the pope) and ask for forgiveness?  



Radiant1 said:


> The fact that he actually takes ACTION by going to a confessional to do it actually speaks highly of his humility...



Who is on the other side of the pope's confessional?



Radiant1 said:


> ...and anyone who does so for that matter. I mean really, saying your sorry and actually being sorry are two different things. If one is truly sorry for their sins, they will take action and do something about it.



Agreed that one is to be truly and genuinely remorseful for sinful actions and that should lead all to repentance before God.




Radiant1 said:


> No, but I'm not exactly a public figure like the pope, president, queen, etc. Are you trying to say that the pope, president, or queen for example WON'T be judged like the rest of us? If so, then perhaps you are creating the idols.



The difference between a president and a pope, queen or king is that the president does not expect his citizenry to bow down to him and kiss his hand in reverent honor of his position. 



Radiant1 said:


> Yes, ok. And, what pray tell does the Holy Spirit do but work in and with the children of God?



According to the Holy Bible, The Holy Spirit is our "Advocate," "Helper," "Intercessor," "Comforter" and "Guide to leading us in our faith in Jesus" - attributes that the RCC has given to Mary even when there is no Biblical proof that she is in Heaven performing those duties. 



Radiant1 said:


> Btw, by your own standard you should be careful about capitalizing the C in children. We wouldn't want you to elevate any of us higher than we really are now would we?



As compared to "children of the world" - I'd say that the "Children of God" will certainly be elevated out of this world! lol


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> St. Paul says in 1Cor 15 - _Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, *for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel*. _
> And, here's Peter who calls Mark his son which most certainly implies he thought of himself as a spiritual father 1Peter 5:13 - _The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, *as does Mark, my son*. _
> Here's John calling people "my children", which again implies he most certainly thought of himself as their spiritual father, 1John 2:1 - _*My children*, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one. _And again he says such in 3John 4 - _Nothing gives me greater joy than to hear that *my children *are walking in the truth._
> So, you already established that believers are holy. The apostles were holy, they also considered themselves spiritual fathers; therefore, they are holy fathers. For the sake of Christ Jesus and your own, use a bit of rationale.


Ahhh, you've developed a new saying: a bit of rationale... :shrug: Whatever.
That's a wacky stretch on the "holy fathers" thought. It's like saying: if Jesus had bad breath on earth, He must also have it in Heaven...

Your deep study of Scripture has led you astray again my friend. Paul & Peter speak of Timothy & Mark as their sons through the Gospel, and themselves as their spiritual fathers; NOT their real fathers, NOT their HEAVENLY Fathers or their HOLY Fathers. BIG difference...Big.

Not much is known about Marks dad but Timothy's dad was a Greek and possibly not a believer. He was mainly raised by his Mom & Grandma so Paul was like a step dad to him. The pope is no ones step dad that I've ever heard of. The "faithful" follow him as much more than that.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> I challenge anyone to ask 10 Catholics if they think the pope is a god. I am quite confident their answer will be *NO*, and then they might look at you as if you are a retarded.


Let's go out on the street together and we can ask some folks. I'll record it so we can have undeniable proof... As I've said, look on some Catholic sites and YOU'D be surprised at what they say there about the pope. Better yet, just remember how they flocked & bowed down to him at the Easter mass...


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> They're not dead if they live in Heaven now are they. If you don't get what eternal life means, then you have no right to call yourself a Christian. For the sake of Christ Jesus and your own, use a bit of rationale.


 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> I never said such a thing, nor would I. What I don't believe are some of your particular interpretations, and with good reason. I realize that you think Catholics don't read the bible, let alone revere it; however, you are wrong. Kindly do not insult me personally in an attempt to cling to the much beloved misconceptions that you like to spread to others.


Your words inferred it. You don't believe what it says or else you'd change your actions. When you deny clear teachings from it, you are indoctrinated. The Bible is the standard and we are to make our lives reconcile with it; not try to make it reconcile with what our church teaches...


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> You didn't answer the question. If Catholics have some sort of sinister motivation, then what motivation do the Lutherans have who also use the same 10? There is no sinister motivation. It stands to reason that to have no other god before the God of Abraham is to not worship idols. It really is that simple.


I promise you, when I meet a Lutheran that I can talk to, I will ask them. For now, I don't know any, so I don't know their motivation.  Catholics I know because I was one. 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> The facts are the facts, and I have sufficiently proven them. You are just being a ridiculous, irrational bigot.


Ahhh, now the name calling starts... Are we out of ammo already? 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> He confesses his sins to God, just like the rest of us. The fact that he actually takes ACTION by going to a confessional to do it actually speaks highly of his humility, and anyone who does so for that matter


If he confesses them to God, then why go to confession to a cardinal, abbot, monsignor or other unbiblical person?? 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Did you not notice that I also said, "what I read in scripture"? I'm guessing you cut that part out in order to create a strawman. And frankly, I'm rather astonished that you feel the need to delineate prayer in an attempt to prove a point, that reeks of desperation IS. One can only assume by your own words that your own prayer has no efficacy. Heh.


I agree. I've prayed for you every night and you're still...out there, but I still love you and pray for you because you're that special.


----------



## Radiant1

Radiant1 said:


> Sure, he prays to Mary asking for her intecession and I'm sure he does with a lot of other people too, just like billions of other Christians around the world.



Starman quoted me as saying:


> Sure, he prays to Mary asking for her intecession and I'm sure he does with a lot of other people too, just like billions of other *Catholics *around the world.



If you're going to change my words, kindly do the honest thing by saying as much. :ahem: You do realize don't you that Catholics aren't the only ones who participate in and ask for intercessory prayer? You do realize don't you that Catholics are Christians? 



Starman3000m said:


> According to The Holy Bible, there is *no proof* that Mary was ever "assumed bodily" nor that she is anywhere next to Jesus in Heaven hearing prayers, interceding on your behalf and allowing souls into Heaven.  Even the RCC admits that there is no Biblical proof.  So if Mary is not really in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Mediatrix," "Benefactress," "Advocate," etc. then all the adorations, prayers and petitions to Mary are in vain and parishioners are being sidetracked from directing their prayers directly to God through Jesus.



: 

If I said, Starman pray for me, would you do it? 



Starman3000m said:


> So, you agree that in the RCC faith no priest is therefore needed to confess your sins? One can go directly to God (just like the pope) and ask for forgiveness?



The sacraments are to go directly to God. The only difference is that one is required to take action and walk The Way, not just talk it . To attend the sacrament of reconciliation (or confession), is to show perfect motive -- love of God, and sorrow for one's sin against Him. To pay lip service is no better than giving Christ a mere passing thought when walking by a cross. 



Starman3000m said:


> Who is on the other side of the pope's confessional?



God is on the other side of every sacrament.



Starman3000m said:


> Agreed that one is to be truly and genuinely remorseful for sinful actions and that should lead all to repentance before God.



Well praise God, you actually agree with something I said. The angels rejoice and sing! Hallelujiah!



Starman3000m said:


> The difference between a president and a pope, queen or king is that the president does not expect his citizenry to bow down to him and kiss his hand in reverent honor of his position.



What makes you think it's expected? A bow, a curtsey, or shaking a hand are all signs of respect. Do you think upon meeting the president you would not shake his hand?



Starman3000m said:


> According to the Holy Bible, The Holy Spirit is our "Advocate," "Helper," "Intercessor," "Comforter" and "Guide to leading us in our faith in Jesus" - attributes that the RCC has given to Mary even when there is no Biblical proof that she is in Heaven performing those duties.



Catholics give those attributes to every believer because guess what? We believe the Holy Spirit works through us and you too. But hey, maybe the Holy Spirit doesn't work through you. I'm half inclined to think so at this point. 



Starman3000m said:


> As compared to "children of the world" - I'd say that the "Children of God" will certainly be elevated out of this world! lol



I'll take that to mean you got my point.


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Ahhh, you've developed a new saying: a bit of rationale... :shrug: Whatever.



It's not new. I've been saying that for some time.



ItalianScallion said:


> That's a wacky stretch on the "holy fathers" thought. It's like saying: if Jesus had bad breath on earth, He must also have it in Heaven...



Is it?



ItalianScallion said:


> Your deep study of Scripture has led you astray again my friend. Paul & Peter speak of Timothy & Mark as their sons through the Gospel, and themselves as their spiritual fathers; NOT their real fathers, NOT their HEAVENLY Fathers or their HOLY Fathers. BIG difference...Big.



Exactly, spiritual fathers. Do you deny they were holy now? Btw, we don't call the Pope Heavenly Father. But of course, since you were a Catholic in your childhood you would know that.



ItalianScallion said:


> Not much is known about Marks dad but Timothy's dad was a Greek and possibly not a believer. He was mainly raised by his Mom & Grandma so Paul was like a step dad to him. The pope is no ones step dad that I've ever heard of. The "faithful" follow him as much more than that.



Where do you get that information? From somewhere "extra-biblical" perhaps? 



ItalianScallion said:


> Let's go out on the street together and we can ask some folks. I'll record it so we can have undeniable proof... As I've said, look on some Catholic sites and YOU'D be surprised at what they say there about the pope.



No offense really, but I have no desire to be in your physical presence. I'll tell you why if you really want to know. There are plenty of Catholics reading this thread, they can chime in if they so wish. I don't see any doing so stating they worship the Pope as you claim.



ItalianScallion said:


> Better yet, just remember how they flocked & bowed down to him at the Easter mass...



Did you watch it on tv?  I must have gone to the bathroom or something at that point, because I never saw anyone flocking to and bowing down to the Pope. 



ItalianScallion said:


>



Yes, that's exactly what I thought about you! 



ItalianScallion said:


> Your words inferred it. You don't believe what it says or else you'd change your actions. When you deny clear teachings from it, you are indoctrinated. The Bible is the standard and we are to make our lives reconcile with it; not try to make it reconcile with what our church teaches...



No...I only disbelieve some of your interpretations, and again, with good reason. My church is 2000+ years old and established by Christ Himself. Yours is, how old are you again?



ItalianScallion said:


> I promise you, when I meet a Lutheran that I can talk to, I will ask them. For now, I don't know any, so I don't know their motivation.  Catholics I know because I was one.



Good, you do that!  So are you telling me that someone during your Catholic education and upbringing told you, "Italian Scallion, we don't directly express the forbidding of idols because we actually worship idols? Come on now, don't be a liar in addition to your other sins here. :ahem:



ItalianScallion said:


> Ahhh, now the name calling starts... Are we out of ammo already?



If that's name calling, then you missed it the first time I said it to you. Ammo? Are we at war IS?



ItalianScallion said:


> If he confesses them to God, then why go to confession to a cardinal, abbot, monsignor or other unbiblical person??



 Cardinals, abbots, and monsignors are priests. Priests are biblical. We go to the confessional because it's biblical to orally confess one's sins. I'll quote all the scripture verses for you if you need me to, but I suspect I don't seeing how you are a bible-only Christian and are well-versed in it. :ahem:



ItalianScallion said:


> I agree. I've prayed for you every night and you're still...out there, but I still love you and pray for you because you're that special.



If you agree that your prayer is not efficacious, then don't bother.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> No offense really, but I have no desire to be in your physical presence.
> If that's name calling, then you missed it the first time I said it to you. Ammo? Are we at war IS?


We are now. Have a nice life.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				ItalianScallion said:
			
		

> Radiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense really, but I have no desire to be in your physical presence.
> If that's name calling, then you missed it the first time I said it to you. Ammo? Are we at war IS?
> 
> 
> 
> We are now. Have a nice life.
Click to expand...


Wow, you did a really good job of pretending to be an open minded 'normal' Christian before.............I bet Jesus is really proud of your petty attacks on your fellow Christians. Now I know I don't currently define myself as a Christian but I have a feeling Jesus would prefer there not be this sort of division among his followers...IMO...but what do I know, I'm evil  mwahahahahaaa


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> Wow, you did a really good job of pretending to be an open minded 'normal' Christian before.............I bet Jesus is really proud of your petty attacks on your fellow Christians. Now I know I don't currently define myself as a Christian but I have a feeling Jesus would prefer there not be this sort of division among his followers...IMO...but what do I know, I'm evil  mwahahahahaaa



Jesus expects his followers to disseminate His Truth and the Truths found in the Holy Bible Una!  There are many false and misguided religions that call themselves "Christian" but that are led by false teachers and misguided rituals, traditions and extra-Biblical teachings that control followers. Those are the pseudo-Christian cults in the world.  If you read the New Testament Gospels you will see that Jesus rebuked the "religious leaders" of His day for their self-serving purposes in controlling their flock.  Same with Jesus' Apostles who wrote searing letters to churches that were going astray and taking on misguided teachings that placed their followers back under religious bondage.

Jesus proclaimed that when He sets one free, they are free indeed.  That freedom is a one-on-one spiritual relationship that is guided directly by the Holy Spirit of God and indwells the followers of Christ.  It is the spiritual discerner that exposes falsehoods in religion.

What ItalianScallion and I post are comparisons of how the Roman Catholc Church (RCC) Doctrines, teachings and traditions do not follow the fundamental teachings of the Holy Bible but have added things that are more in line with ancient Roman paganism. For example the veneration of saints replace the lesser gods of Rome and Mary has replaced the mother goddess figure that pagan Rome understood and accepted.

The point is that The Holy Bible is the Standard of God's Truth.  The RCC, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists all call themselves a "Christian faith" yet are in total disagreement with each other and in total error from Fundamental Bible Truths. 

It is the responsibility of Bible Believing followers of Christ to point out doctrinal error where there is doctrinal error.


----------



## onel0126

Wow, 6 weeks and its like I never left!  Happy Easter you all.


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> Wow, 6 weeks and its like I never left!  Happy Easter you all.



Welcome back onel0126! (I think) LOL

Sounds like you are ready to pick up from where you left off.

BTW: *There Is Still Only One Truth!*
Welcome back.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Starman3000m said:
			
		

> What ItalianScallion and I post are comparisons of how the Roman Catholc Church (RCC) Doctrines, teachings and traditions do not follow the fundamental teachings of the Holy Bible but have added things that are more in line with ancient Roman paganism. For example the veneration of saints replace the lesser gods of Rome and Mary has replaced the mother goddess figure that pagan Rome understood and accepted.



Pagan...you mean like Christmas, Easter, all saints day (well I guess this one might be just for Catholics? IDK), communion, the layout of the alters and the symbology? Catholics are the ONLY ones who've made use of pagan traditions and rituals?




			
				Starman3000m said:
			
		

> The point is that The Holy Bible is the Standard of God's Truth.  The RCC, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists all call themselves a "Christian faith" yet are in total disagreement with each other and in total error from Fundamental Bible Truths.



This is you opinion, OPINION! I don't understand why you don't understand that!!


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> Pagan...you mean like Christmas, Easter, all saints day (well I guess this one might be just for Catholics? IDK), communion, the layout of the alters and the symbology? Catholics are the ONLY ones who've made use of pagan traditions and rituals?



Yes, there has been much pagan influence that Rome intermixed with Christianity and became an acceptable tradition.  These "holidays" were not first-century traditions of the early Christian followers of Jesus.




UNA said:


> This is you opinion, OPINION! I don't understand why you don't understand that!!



And yet there is still something that everyone needs to understand:
*There Is Only One Truth*.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you did a really good job of pretending to be an open minded 'normal' Christian before.............I bet Jesus is really proud of your petty attacks on your fellow Christians. Now I know I don't currently define myself as a Christian but I have a feeling Jesus would prefer there not be this sort of division among his followers...IMO...but what do I know, I'm evil  mwahahahahaaa



I certainly never said you were evil. I may have said you were a sinner as are all including me. If a person is not a sinner, a person does not need a Savior. I need a Savior; I'm glad I have one.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

2ndAmendment said:


> I think there are a few prints of paintings, but no Jesus hanging on a cross that we genuflect to. Nor do we have statues of people that we kneel and pray before.
> 
> I agree that there are several instances where God commanded certain images to be made but not as gods.



I must correct this. I went through the entire building and the annex and there are no paintings, prints, or any other symbolism that I could find with the exception of a cross without Jesus on it at the front of the sanctuary.

Just wanted to set the record straight.


----------



## onel0126

2ndAmendment said:


> I must correct this. I went through the entire building and the annex and there are no paintings, prints, or any other symbolism that I could find with the exception of a cross without Jesus on it at the front of the sanctuary.
> 
> Just wanted to set the record straight.



Are the Christian and American flags present?


----------



## onel0126

2ndAmendment said:


> but no Jesus hanging on a cross that we genuflect to




All do respect, Catholics are not genuflecting because there is a crucifix above the altar, they are genuflecting because they believe He is present in the tabernacle which is usually on the altar in the center.  Please, if you are going to state that Catholics are doing something counter-biblical, know what you are talking about.  Thanks.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

onel0126 said:


> Are the Christian and American flags present?


Yes.


onel0126 said:


> All do respect, Catholics are not genuflecting because there is a crucifix above the altar, they are genuflecting because they believe He is present in the tabernacle which is usually on the altar in the center.  Please, if you are going to state that Catholics are doing something counter-biblical, know what you are talking about.  Thanks.


I think you owe me an apology. I was just making a statement as to what we do or do not do. I have not disparaged Catholics in any way in this thread or elsewhere. I have tried to get Radient1, Italian Stallion, and others to quit with the denominational bickering. 

While there are practices of the Catholic Church I would not participate in, there are things that Baptists believe and don't believe with which I also disagree. There are Pentecostals that believe you must speak in tongues to be saved; while I am a Christian pentecostal, I do not believe that.

The denominations are divisions of the body of Christ which is the Church. While such divisiveness can be destructive, God has used it to reach various groups of Christian faith. All things work for the good of those that follow and trust in the Lord.


----------



## onel0126

2ndAmendment said:


> Yes.
> 
> What purpose do these symbols serve in a church?
> 
> I think you owe me an apology. I was just making a statement as to what we do or do not do.



You intimated that Catholics genuflect to a crucifix.  Again, all do respect but that is what you said.  Suppose I had said, all pentecostals speak in tongues and play with snakes?


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> Wow, you did a really good job of pretending to be an open minded 'normal' Christian before.............I bet Jesus is really proud of your petty attacks on your fellow Christians. Now I know I don't currently define myself as a Christian but I have a feeling Jesus would prefer there not be this sort of division among his followers...IMO...but what do I know, I'm evil  mwahahahahaaa


"Petty attacks"? "Fellow Christians"? UNA, you don't realize how ignorant your comments are because you know very little about Christianity. Go back and look at who called whom names before you take her side. Go back and count the names I was called and then read her last statement. She wants no part of me or my presence. Ok; no problem. I just complied with her request. Now you think I was "pretending" to be something I wasn't? Please get a clue...

Btw, what's going on here is exactly what Jesus did while He was on earth. Speaking out against the lies that YOU & others have swallowed entirely. It is very dangerous to be open minded all the time; that allows anything & everything to go in and mess up your mind. Get educated on Christianity, then come back & speak out. You have believed the lie but don't even know it.


onel0126 said:


> All do respect, Catholics are not genuflecting because there is a crucifix above the altar, they are genuflecting because they believe He is present in the tabernacle which is usually on the altar in the center.  Please, if you are going to state that Catholics are doing something counter-biblical, know what you are talking about.  Thanks.


Really? Most all the time when I went to that church, they would bring those things out before the mass started...Oh and how was your lent? Did giving up the forums help you?


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> This is you opinion, OPINION! I don't understand why you don't understand that!!


WOW!! Where's that open minded gal I met a few weeks ago? Sounds like she has slammed it shut. Were you just pretending to be open minded when you said: "you weren't here to change anyones mind, just ask questions"? 

It's God's opinion btw. That's why He wrote it. It takes more faith on your part do deny the truth than it does to believe it but we understand why YOU don't understand that. 

The Bible has been proven but your improper study of that "proof" led you to the wrong conclusion. IOW, your opinion is now just that: YOUR opinion...one that you will give an account to God for one day. Again, I hope you come back to the God you learned about before...


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> Yes, there has been much pagan influence that Rome intermixed with Christianity and became an acceptable tradition.  These "holidays" were not first-century traditions of the early Christian followers of Jesus.



But they are of MOST Christian traditions now...Catholic and most protestants.  I don't know where you fall but I'm willing to bet you had a Christmas tree last year




Starman3000m said:


> And yet there is still something that everyone needs to understand:
> *There Is Only One Truth*.



You cannot prove that to me, there is no repeatable evidence, you cannot physically see, smell, feel, taste, nor hear this.  It is YOUR faith (which, again, is fine) it is not a FACT!!!!!


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> I certainly never said you were evil. I may have said you were a sinner as are all including me. If a person is not a sinner, a person does not need a Savior. I need a Savior; I'm glad I have one.



I didn't mean to imply you did...someone said something on another thread about it...I was making a generalization, sorry 

And I'm glad you have a savior too!  And IMO I do too!   Difference is, my savior will not pick and choose...


----------



## 2ndAmendment

onel0126 said:


> You intimated that Catholics genuflect to a crucifix.  Again, all do respect but that is what you said.  Suppose I had said, all pentecostals speak in tongues and play with snakes?


Do not Catholics genuflect when they cross before the crucifix? It is what I have observed when attending mass. The reason of bowing before God is not disputed by me, but the observation of when this occurs is true, is it not?

I would have said that is not entirely true. While some Pentecostals do speak in tongues and some few do play with snakes, not all do. The snake handlers are a very small sect (cult?) and I observe that the Pentecostals I know and have associated believe that the snake handlers are tempting God. Tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit. 

I have known many Catholics that have received the gift of tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit. That is why I know the some Catholics are Christians. The Holy Spirit is not poured out on those that are not Christians. And I am not picking on Catholics; not all that call themselves Catholic are Christians just like not all that go to a Pentecostal congregation are Christians, or Baptists, or any other denomination.

Again, it was a differentiation of custom; nothing more. Sorry I caused offense where none was intended.


----------



## onel0126

2ndAmendment said:


> Do not Catholics genuflect when they cross before the crucifix? It is what I have observed when attending mass. The reason of bowing before God is not disputed by me, but the observation of when this occurs is true, is it not?
> 
> I would have said that is not entirely true. While some Pentecostals do speak in tongues and some few do play with snakes, not all do. The snake handlers are a very small sect (cult?) and I observe that the Pentecostals I know and have associated believe that the snake handlers are tempting God. Tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> I have known many Catholics that have received the gift of tongues and other gifts of the Holy Spirit. That is why I know the some Catholics are Christians. The Holy Spirit is not poured out on those that are not Christians. And I am not picking on Catholics; not all that call themselves Catholic are Christians just like not all that go to a Pentecostal congregation are Christians, or Baptists, or any other denomination.
> 
> Again, it was a differentiation of custom; nothing more. Sorry I caused offense where none was intended.



Here is where you are getting confused.  In most Catholic churches, the tabernacle (the safe-like box) that holds the concecrated hosts (Jesus himself they believe) is under the crucifix in the center of the altar.  In some more modern Catholic churches the tabernacles are off to the side (not good).  When you see people genuflecting when they "cross" in front of the altar they are genuflecting out of respect for Him in the tabernacle--not the crucifix even though due to their close proximity it may appear that way.

So why does your church have the American and Christian flags on the altar?


----------



## 2ndAmendment

onel0126 said:


> Here is where you are getting confused.  In most Catholic churches, the tabernacle (the safe-like box) that holds the concecrated hosts (Jesus himself they believe) is under the crucifix in the center of the altar.  In some more modern Catholic churches the tabernacles are off to the side (not good).  When you see people genuflecting when they "cross" in front of the altar they are genuflecting out of respect for Him in the tabernacle--not the crucifix even though due to their close proximity it may appear that way.
> 
> So why does your church have the American and Christian flags on the altar?



I am not confused and I am not disputing the reasoning. I may not agree with some of the Catholic beliefs, but that is why I am not a Catholic, but I also am not disparaging those beliefs. You have taken offense where none was intended. One of my aunts was a nun. Many of my aunts, uncles, and cousins were Catholic.

As to the flags, they are present but have no special significance beyond the significance of any flag in any venue. When we presented the Passion Play Easter Sunday, they were not in the sanctuary. No big deal.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				ItalianScallion said:
			
		

> "Petty attacks"? "Fellow Christians"? UNA, you don't realize how ignorant your comments are because you know very little about Christianity. Go back and look at who called whom names before you take her side. Go back and count the names I was called and then read her last statement. She wants no part of me or my presence. Ok; no problem. I just complied with her request. Now you think I was "pretending" to be something I wasn't? Please get a clue...
> 
> Btw, what's going on here is exactly what Jesus did while He was on earth. Speaking out against the lies that YOU & others have swallowed entirely. It is very dangerous to be open minded all the time; that allows anything & everything to go in and mess up your mind. Get educated on Christianity, then come back & speak out. You have believed the lie but don't even know it.:



Maybe I should have read the history of the sect-bashing before I commented. Sorry...but might be a good idea to "turn the other cheek"? Just seemed like you went from understanding and helpful to closed off pretty quick. But like you said, I don't know the forum history WRT this. 

And I don't think it's dangerous to be open minded. It allows me to have different experiences and to see the world in a little broader way. I know how to differentiate between the BS out there and the real, valuable knowledge. I don't just let everything in and accept it as true! I take it in, analyze it, think about it, talk about it them file it away. And I k kw I haven't read the bible cover to cover, but I AM knowledgeable about the people and the history of the church and for the most part I don't like it. You may believe the bible is the true, literal word of god but a lot of people don't, and I NEVER have, even while attending church. 

And sorry, the definitions of faith and facts aren't lies, they're human-created definitions for relatively abstract concepts. If you don't like them then find other words to use.

BTW, exactly what lies am I 'believing'?


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				ItalianScallion said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is you opinion, OPINION! I don't understand why you don't understand that!!
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!! Where's that open minded gal I met a few weeks ago? Sounds like she has slammed it shut. Were you just pretending to be open minded when you said: "you weren't here to change anyones mind, just ask questions"?
> 
> It's God's opinion btw. That's why He wrote it. It takes more faith on your part do deny the truth than it does to believe it but we understand why YOU don't understand that.
> 
> The Bible has been proven but your improper study of that "proof" led you to the wrong conclusion. IOW, your opinion is now just that: YOUR opinion...one that you will give an account to God for one day. Again, I hope you come back to the God you learned about before...
Click to expand...


Still here 

Just would like people to stop presenting opinions and ideas as truth!

Still WAITING for that "proof" BTW


----------



## onel0126

2ndAmendment said:


> I am not confused and I am not disputing the reasoning. I may not agree with some of the Catholic beliefs, but that is why I am not a Catholic, but I also am not disparaging those beliefs. You have taken offense where none was intended. One of my aunts was a nun. Many of my aunts, uncles, and cousins were Catholic.
> 
> As to the flags, they are present but have no special significance beyond the significance of any flag in any venue. When we presented the Passion Play Easter Sunday, they were not in the sanctuary. No big deal.




No offense taken, I am/was simply correcting your innaccurate assertation that Catholics are genuflecting to crucifixes on the altar.  As for the flags in your church, I am simply pointing out that your church has extra-biblical symbols in it displayed on the altar.  That's it.


----------



## Radiant1

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> Maybe I should have read the history of the sect-bashing before I commented. Sorry...but might be a good idea to "turn the other cheek"? Just seemed like you went from understanding and helpful to closed off pretty quick. But like you said, I don't know the forum history WRT this.



The history in a nutshell....Starman and IS take every opportunity to bash Catholicism often erroneously stating what Catholics believe, Catholics explain and correct the misunderstandings/pre-conceived notions, Starman and IS continue in the same vain regardless, and then because it has become glaringly obvious I call them bigots. :shrug:



onel0126 said:


> As for the flags in your church, I am simply pointing out that your church has extra-biblical symbols in it displayed on the altar.  That's it.



And where are IS and Starman to  about this? Oh that's right, in this case it's not Catholic so they'll let it slide. I suppose consistency is too much to ask from them.


----------



## Bird Dog

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have read the history of the sect-bashing before I commented. Sorry...but might be a good idea to "turn the other cheek"? Just seemed like you went from understanding and helpful to closed off pretty quick. But like you said, I don't know the forum history WRT this.



If you would read the history of this thread you would find:

1. Starmann is nothing but a false prophet with women/mother issues just waiting to open up his church (lower case C on purpose) in a stripmall near you.

2. IS is an ex-Catholic who pulled himself out of the gutter and refound Jesus and now blames all his ex-problems on the Catholic Church.
He has already opened his church, not in stripmall, but at the Red Robin in Lexington Park where he preaches every Sunday.

Both, just like the Muslims condemn me and my fellow Roman Catholic bretheren to hell because of our beliefs are not like thiers.

Just a quick overview for you. I am not as gracious as RAD1.


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> And I k kw I haven't read the bible cover to cover, but I AM knowledgeable about the people and the history of the church and for the most part I don't like it. You may believe the bible is the true, literal word of god but a lot of people don't, and I NEVER have, even while attending church.
> BTW, exactly what lies am I 'believing'?


From your statements above and earlier you've said:
The Bible is not true, therefore you have the wrong God.
You slam the Bible even before you've read it. 
Some bad church/family experiences have caused you to doubt the true God.
Jesus miracles were fake...etc.


Radiant1 said:


> The history in a nutshell....Starman and IS take every opportunity to bash Catholicism often erroneously stating what Catholics believe, Catholics explain and correct the misunderstandings/pre-conceived notions, Starman and IS continue in the same vain regardless, and then because it has become glaringly obvious I call them bigots. :shrug:
> And where are IS and Starman to  about this? Oh that's right, in this case it's not Catholic so they'll let it slide. I suppose consistency is too much to ask from them.


Show me my errors. You have failed to correctly show any. You've tried, but the statements you've made were wrong...but you'll never admit that.

How are flags in a church, a symbol of idol worship? I guess 2A worships the paint on the walls and the lights fixtures too? 


Bird Dog said:


> If you would read the history of this thread you would find:
> 2. IS is an ex-Catholic who pulled himself out of the gutter and refound Jesus and now blames all his ex-problems on the Catholic Church.
> He has already opened his church, not in stripmall, but at the Red Robin in Lexington Park where he preaches every Sunday.
> Both, just like the Muslims condemn me and my fellow Roman Catholic bretheren to hell because of our beliefs are not like thiers.


Actually, Jesus found me. He said follow me and I said ok.
No preaching goes on at RR. Ask Libby.
RR is in California btw.
I haven't condemned you to Hell. I'm just trying to help you NOT believe the lies that would send you there. 
It's theirs, not "thiers"...
And finally, it sounds like you're judging me & Starman from your throne in the church of St Bird Dog? Stick to the discussion and not the personal attacks bro...


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Show me my errors. You have failed to correctly show any. You've tried, *but the statements you've made were wrong*...but you'll never admit that.





If you haven't noticed, I have no desire to tell others what you believe and why or what I think your errors are; however, you don't accord me and other Catholics the same courtesy. There are other Christians on this forum who manage that just fine. If you would speak for yourself and let us speak for ourselves, then no one would believe you an irrational hatred-hugging bigot.  Your apparent desperate need to point out how you are right regarding others _so-called_ errors is the epitome of Homo incurvatus in se.



ItalianScallion said:


> How are flags in a church, a symbol of idol worship? I guess 2A worships the paint on the walls and the lights fixtures too?



:shrug: You tell me, IS. What's wrong with it?


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> The history in a nutshell....Starman and IS take every opportunity to bash Catholicism often erroneously stating what Catholics believe, Catholics explain and correct the misunderstandings/pre-conceived notions, Starman and IS continue in the same vain regardless, and then because it has become glaringly obvious I call them bigots. :shrug::



So I was right then?  thanks for the synopsis!


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Bird Dog said:
			
		

> If you would read the history of this thread you would find:
> 
> 1. Starmann is nothing but a false prophet with women/mother issues just waiting to open up his church (lower case C on purpose) in a stripmall near you.
> 
> 2. IS is an ex-Catholic who pulled himself out of the gutter and refound Jesus and now blames all his ex-problems on the Catholic Church.
> He has already opened his church, not in stripmall, but at the Red Robin in Lexington Park where he preaches every Sunday.
> 
> Both, just like the Muslims condemn me and my fellow Roman Catholic bretheren to hell because of our beliefs are not like thiers.
> 
> Just a quick overview for you. I am not as gracious as RAD1.



Yeah, see that's what I thought...thanks! And no need to be gracious, this is a forum, who cares?


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				ItalianScallion said:
			
		

> From your statements above and earlier you've said:
> The Bible is not true, therefore you have the wrong God.
> You slam the Bible even before you've read it.
> Some bad church/family experiences have caused you to doubt the true God.
> Jesus miracles were fake...etc.:



You've got this all wrong (go figure) I ask thought- provoking questions and try to explain the definition of simple English words like fact and faith. I've never said that anyone's faith is wrong or right! Just that it's all faith and there's no REAL proof of any of it, including mn own!


----------



## Radiant1

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> I've never said that anyone's faith is wrong or right! Just that it's all faith and there's no REAL proof of any of it, including mn own!



You might as well put that in your signature so as to avoid having to say it a million times more.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> You might as well put that in your signature so as to avoid having to say it a million times more.



Probably a good idea!  glad to see there is at least one other person here with common sense...so far at least  LOL


----------



## Starman3000m

Bird Dog said:


> If you would read the history of this thread you would find:
> 
> 1. Starmann is nothing but a false prophet with women/mother issues just waiting to open up his church (lower case C on purpose) in a stripmall near you...



Sorry, Bird Dog, but as mentioned before, I haven't prophesied anything for you to call me a "false prophet" about. 

The fact that I point out the heresy of Catholicism's apparent "Mary Worship" and the RCC's elevating Mary to be "Queen over all things", "Mediatrix", "Co-Redemptrix", "Advocate", "Helper", etc., is definitely an issue that must be challenged since even the RCC admits they have no Biblical proof of Mary being "bodily assumed" to Heaven.

The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.



> For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
> 
> But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
> As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)



The written words of the Holy Bible contain all the essential truths that brings a person to the Salvation Grace that God offers through the Atoning Blood of Christ and there is no mention that Mary would ever join Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," Benefactress," co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," etc.

Jesus is the resurrected Saviour of mankind; There Is Proof of that. 
There is no Biblical proof that Mary resurrected and was assumed up to Heaven. *No Proof - No Truth!*


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> If you haven't noticed, I have no desire to tell others what you believe and why or what I think your errors are; however, you don't accord me and other Catholics the same courtesy. There are other Christians on this forum who manage that just fine. If you would speak for yourself and let us speak for ourselves, then no one would believe you an irrational hatred-hugging bigot.  Your apparent desperate need to point out how you are right regarding others _so-called_ errors is the epitome of Homo incurvatus in se.
> :shrug:


"Courtesy"? Is it courteous to see someone headed for possible destruction and not warn them? That's courtesy?  Did Jesus Paul & Peter say to ignore people who spread false doctrines or did they say to speak out against them? Refute them with the Scriptures? See what happens when you don't believe it all?

How COULD you tell others that what I believe is wrong when much of what you believe is wrong? Do you think your pope would tell you that bowing to statues is wrong? Praying to the dead is wrong? You do some of the very things the Bible says not to and then you come on here and try to say you don't! :shrug:

Not one thing I've said to you was untrue; Not one! I don't point out the minor differences of the RCC. I point out the ones that can endanger your spiritual life. But hey; I've done what I'm called to do in Ezekiel 3. You won't be judged by me so, since you don't believe the Bible completely and you take some man's word over God's, it's on you.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> You tell me, IS. What's wrong with it?


Sorry kid. You're the one who brought up the flag issue with 2A; YOU tell us what's wrong in your little mind and why you mentioned it...


UNA said:


> So I was right then?  thanks for the synopsis!  glad to see there is at least one other person here with common sense...so far at least  LOL


Well, looks like Radiant1 made a convert to her way of thinking. See what an open mind can do for you UNA? 


UNA said:


> You've got this all wrong (go figure) I ask thought- provoking questions and try to explain the definition of simple English words like fact and faith. I've never said that anyone's faith is wrong or right! Just that it's all faith and there's no REAL proof of any of it, including mn own!


 Come on UNA! You regularly speak out against the Bible, Jesus being God, miracles, etc., and you say: "You've never said anyone's faith is wrong or right"? Do you think I make this stuff up in my own head? Be objective my dear; open that mind up... The proof is all around you but you STILL insist on not seeing it...

You're soo hung up on this faith & facts issue that you've clouded up your own mind. We believe much of the Bible because of the facts. Creation, prophesies, archaeology, probability, etc. We don't have a blind faith. God doesn't expect us to believe everything we read blindly, but it doesn't take major amounts of faith to believe in God. He gave most Christians, discernment. (We can separate the truth from the errors). We CAN believe the rest by faith because those facts allow us to believe that the rest of the story is true.


----------



## tiger78

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> You've got this all wrong (go figure) I ask thought- provoking questions and try to explain the definition of simple English words like fact and faith. I've never said that anyone's faith is wrong or right! Just that it's all faith and there's no REAL proof of any of it, including mn own!




The scriptural definition of faith is:  "Faith is the substance to things hoped for the evidence of things not seen."  
Faith comes by hearing the word of God.  
You may feel that there is no "real proof" but as a Christian I have a faith that the word of God is true and real and my risen Savior is all the Real Proof I need.  I pray that someday you may also come to  this understanding.


----------



## onel0126

ItalianScallion said:


> How are flags in a church, a symbol of idol worship? I guess 2A worships the paint on the walls and the lights fixtures too?



You can't have it both ways IS.  You ranted in a thread one time about wax candles in Catholic churches on the altar being extra-biblical.  Surely flags are too.  From my perusings of religious art, I have never seen a flag depicted in paintings of the last supper.  Some would even argue that pledging allegiance to the flag is an act of worship.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				ItalianScallion said:
			
		

> Come on UNA! You regularly speak out against the Bible, Jesus being God, miracles, etc., and you say: "You've never said anyone's faith is wrong or right"? Do you think I make this stuff up in my own head? Be objective my dear; open that mind up... The proof is all around you but you STILL insist on not seeing it...
> 
> You're soo hung up on this faith & facts issue that you've clouded up your own mind. We believe much of the Bible because of the facts. Creation, prophesies, archaeology, probability, etc. We don't have a blind faith. God doesn't expect us to believe everything we read blindly, but it doesn't take major amounts of faith to believe in God. He gave most Christians, discernment. (We can separate the truth from the errors). We CAN believe the rest by faith because those facts allow us to believe that the rest of the story is true.



Being objective doesn't mean I have to agree with everything someone says. I see the point you make, I just don't agree that they are facts. I faith you have in the bible if right for you, not everyone. No one has any ground to stand on WRT whether their beliefs are correct nor that anyone else's is not. 

I'm still waiting for that 'proof' of creation BTW


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				tiger78 said:
			
		

> The scriptural definition of faith is:  "Faith is the substance to things hoped for the evidence of things not seen."
> Faith comes by hearing the word of God.
> You may feel that there is no "real proof" but as a Christian I have a faith that the word of God is true and real and my risen Savior is all the Real Proof I need.  I pray that someday you may also come to  this understanding.



This is all I'm trying to get people to understand! There is nothing wrong nor incorrect about have faith in god and the bible! I have faith too; just not in Christianity. I just don't like when people tell me I'm wrong because the bible is right and that's a fact because it's not fact, it's faith! And it's a good thing!


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> "Courtesy"? Is it courteous to see someone headed for possible destruction and not warn them? That's courtesy?  Did Jesus Paul & Peter say to ignore people who spread false doctrines or did they say to speak out against them? Refute them with the Scriptures? See what happens when you don't believe it all?
> 
> How COULD you tell others that what I believe is wrong when much of what you believe is wrong? Do you think your pope would tell you that bowing to statues is wrong? Praying to the dead is wrong? You do some of the very things the Bible says not to and then you come on here and try to say you don't! :shrug:
> 
> Not one thing I've said to you was untrue; Not one! I don't point out the minor differences of the RCC. I point out the ones that can endanger your spiritual life. But hey; I've done what I'm called to do in Ezekiel 3. You won't be judged by me so, since you don't believe the Bible completely and you take some man's word over God's, it's on you.



Well, how could YOU tell others that I'M wrong when much of what YOU believe is wrong?? Nanny nanny boo boo!!  

Actually, you do have false doctrines. At any rate, you've done what you feel is your part. And, you're right, you're not my judge or anyone elses, so sit down and shut up already. 

Since you have declared yourself at war with me, I will in turn give you the same "courtesy" that you give me...

- IS believes the apostles aren't holy.
- IS believes we all should worship paper.
- IS believes we should go to church at a bar.
- IS believes he is the only one with the Holy Spirit.
- IS believes he's better than Jesus' own mother.
- IS believes everyone will burn in hell except him.
- IS believes it's ok to worship a flag.
- IS believes the God of Abraham is wrong.
- IS believes he is right and everyone else is wrong.
- IS believes he is a god.



> Sorry kid. You're the one who brought up the flag issue with 2A; YOU tell us what's wrong in your little mind and why you mentioned it...



Ummm, no I didn't. Since you're all about pointing fingers and throwing stones, I figured you would tell all of us what was wrong with it. However, I'm not surprised that you won't seeing how 2A isn't a Catholic. Hypocrite.


----------



## Radiant1

onel0126 said:


> You can't have it both ways IS.  You ranted in a thread one time about wax candles in Catholic churches on the altar being extra-biblical.  Surely flags are too.  From my perusings of religious art, I have never seen a flag depicted in paintings of the last supper.  *Some would even argue that pledging allegiance to the flag is an act of worship.*





Don't you know that "extra-biblical" items on the altar are ok if it's fabric and not wax, wood, or plaster, and saying the pledge is only worship if a Catholic does it!!??


----------



## Bird Dog

Starman3000m said:


> Sorry, Bird Dog, but as mentioned before, I haven't prophesied anything for you to call me a "false prophet" about.
> 
> The fact that I point out the heresy of Catholicism's apparent "Mary Worship" and the RCC's elevating Mary to be "Queen over all things", "Mediatrix", "Co-Redemptrix", "Advocate", "Helper", etc., is definitely an issue that must be challenged since even the RCC admits they have no Biblical proof of Mary being "bodily assumed" to Heaven.
> 
> The RCC is preaching "salvation" via another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary and not the True Biblical teaching of Salvation from the New Testament Accounts.
> 
> 
> 
> The written words of the Holy Bible contain all the essential truths that brings a person to the Salvation Grace that God offers through the Atoning Blood of Christ and there is no mention that Mary would ever join Him in Heaven as "Queen over all things," "Helper," "Advocate," Benefactress," co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix," etc.
> 
> Jesus is the resurrected Saviour of mankind; There Is Proof of that.
> There is no Biblical proof that Mary resurrected and was assumed up to Heaven. *No Proof - No Truth!*



Skwawwwwwk!!!


----------



## ItalianScallion

onel0126 said:


> You can't have it both ways IS.  You ranted in a thread one time about wax candles in Catholic churches on the altar being extra-biblical.  Surely flags are too.  From my perusings of religious art, I have never seen a flag depicted in paintings of the last supper.  Some would even argue that pledging allegiance to the flag is an act of worship.


Ranting about candles on a Catholic altar? I don't remember commenting on candles in the church. What did I say about them? You & Radiant1 are making these ridiculous statements. Saluting the flag or a military officer is not worship. What your people do to statues & the pope, is. You're both trying to deny it by diverting the readers attention with absurd statements like these. 


UNA said:


> I see the point you make, I just don't agree that they are facts. I faith you have in the bible if right for you, not everyone. No one has any ground to stand on WRT whether their beliefs are correct nor that anyone else's is not.
> I'm still waiting for that 'proof' of creation BTW


Again, the Bible is that "ground". What will you do when you find that out on the other side and it's too late? You should get ready for that NOW. 

 When you look in the mirror tonight, you'll see the MAIN proof of creation. 


Radiant1 said:


> Well, how could YOU tell others that I'M wrong when much of what YOU believe is wrong?? Nanny nanny boo boo!!


We may be at war but I still love your silliness... 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Actually, you do have false doctrines. At any rate, you've done what you feel is your part. And, you're right, you're not my judge or anyone elses, so sit down and shut up already.


I am sitting down and not saying anything. Feisty little 
But how do you know my doctrines are false? It's my word against yours unless you have a "standard of truth" to prove me wrong...well, do you? 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> - IS believes the apostles aren't holy.
> - IS believes we all should worship paper.
> - IS believes we should go to church at a bar.
> - IS believes he is the only one with the Holy Spirit.
> - IS believes he's better than Jesus' own mother.
> - IS believes everyone will burn in hell except him.
> - IS believes it's ok to worship a flag.
> - IS believes the God of Abraham is wrong.
> - IS believes he is right and everyone else is wrong.
> - IS believes he is a god.


No I don't
Liar liar, hair's on fire
Any port in a storm
Nope
No way! I'm a guy
Link please?
Salute, not worship
Never
The first half of that one is correct
You spelled good wrong...


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Ummm, no I didn't. Since you're all about pointing fingers and throwing stones, I figured you would tell all of us what was wrong with it. However, I'm not surprised that you won't seeing how 2A isn't a Catholic. Hypocrite


You mentioned Starman & I when onel asked about flags in church. I said (if you would read properly) there's nothing wrong with having flags in a church. Saluting them or pledging to them is not a sin.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				ItalianScallion said:
			
		

> Again, the Bible is that "ground". What will you do when you find that out on the other side and it's too late? You should get ready for that NOW.
> 
> When you look in the mirror tonight, you'll see the MAIN proof of creation.



I'm not going to pretend to be Christian 'just in case' and somehow I think God would know

And when I look in the mirror I'll see me, that's it. I'm not proof of the Christian creation story. I'm not proof of evolution either since it's not law either, but at least evolutionists have evidence!


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> I'm not going to pretend to be Christian 'just in case' and somehow I think God would know. And when I look in the mirror I'll see me, that's it. I'm not proof of the Christian creation story. I'm not proof of evolution either since it's not law either, but at least evolutionists have evidence!


Are you sure your house won't burn down or that you won't get into a car accident? That's why you have insurance. Are you sure you won't end up in Hell? Jesus is you ONLY fire insurance.

You're right; He WILL know. And if you're not one of His.........Not going to be a good time for you. When you look in the mirror, you'll see a person made in God's image & likeness. That was my point. You ARE the proof! Stop believing all those lies! Evolutionists have nothing. Their brain is the missing link.

Here's what God said. Then you decide if you're stronger & smarter than He:

18 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, *who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them*. 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—*have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse".* (Romans 1) 

Feeling lucky? Don't take the chance UNA. You'll lose darling...


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> Saluting the flag or a military officer is not worship. What your people do to statues & the pope, is. You're both trying to deny it by diverting the readers attention with absurd statements like these.



It IS absurd isn't it??  If what Catholics do for the Pope is worship, then most assuredly putting your hand over your heart before a flag is.  I think you may be getting it now!!! Or, probably not, because you just choose to hate. 



ItalianScallion said:


> But how do you know my doctrines are false? It's my word against yours unless you have a "standard of truth" to prove me wrong...well, *do you?*



Yes. I'm rather glad I do have it, for if I followed your doctrines it might lead me straight to hell.



ItalianScallion said:


> You mentioned Starman & I when onel asked about flags in church. I said (if you would read properly) there's nothing wrong with having flags in a church. Saluting them or pledging to them is not a sin.



It's ok. I never expected you to be consistent in your condemnations. Hypocrite.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				ItalianScallion said:
			
		

> Are you sure your house won't burn down or that you won't get into a car accident? That's why you have insurance. Are you sure you won't end up in Hell? Jesus is you ONLY fire insurance.
> 
> You're right; He WILL know. And if you're not one of His.........Not going to be a good time for you. When you look in the mirror, you'll see a person made in God's image & likeness. That was my point. You ARE the proof! Stop believing all those lies! Evolutionists have nothing. Their brain is the missing link.
> 
> Here's what God said. Then you decide if you're stronger & smarter than He:
> 
> 18 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, *who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them*.
> 
> For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—*have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse".* (Romans 1)
> 
> Feeling lucky? Don't take the chance UNA. You'll lose darling...



I never said I thought I was smarter than god. Remember, I believe in god, just not a book that was written 1000's of years ago 'by god'.

How am I proof of Christian creation; is there some kind of spiritual bit in me? A magical organ? Is there some bit in me that isn't organic? No! Everything in me is biological, understood by science. We might not understand it all yet but that doesn't mean it's because of god. We're mapping the human genome right now, we're beginnin to understand us. 

I guess I'm still hung up on wanting facts rather than faith to prove things. Guess that's too much to ask for  why won't you except that you don't have facts? It doesn't take away from your faith, it doesn't make you wrong! I'll go first, I have to facts proving the god I believe in is right, and I don't have all the facts I need to prove that we all evolved from a common ancestor. I have faith in the former, and evidence to the latter.  But not verifiable proof....yet


----------



## onel0126

ItalianScallion said:


> Ranting about candles on a Catholic altar? I don't remember commenting on candles in the church. What did I say about them? You & Radiant1 are making these ridiculous statements. Saluting the flag or a military officer is not worship. What your people do to statues & the pope, is. You're both trying to deny it by diverting the readers attention with absurd statements like these.



*First, let me apologize to IS, yes I admit being wrong.*  After searching the thread in question it was Starman that included wax candles in a list among many other things as an being extra-biblical part of Catholic worship.  I due stand by my statement though that flags in Protestant churches are as extra-biblical as candles and statues.  I have no problem with flags being present as both the Vatican and US flags are present in Catholic churches--they should however NOT be on the altar.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to pretend to be Christian 'just in case' and somehow I think God would know
> 
> And when I look in the mirror I'll see me, that's it. I'm not proof of the Christian creation story. I'm not proof of evolution either since it's not law either, but *at least evolutionists have evidence*!


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				2ndAmendment said:
			
		

>



Are you saying that there is absolutely zero evidence supporting evolution? Do creationists have more evidence?


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that there is absolutely zero evidence supporting evolution? Do creationists have more evidence?



Where is the evidence of evolution? Where? I have never seen any FACTS. Just beliefs.

Evolution is as much a religion as Catholicism or Southern Baptists. Its followers just have faith in Darwin.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				2ndAmendment said:
			
		

> Where is the evidence of evolution? Where? I have never seen any FACTS. Just beliefs.
> 
> Evolution is as much a religion as Catholicism or Southern Baptists. Its followers just have faith in Darwin.



We can see evolution in action right now! There are species that a nearly changing before our eyes! I've never claimed that evolution is a fact, it is a theory which means there is evidence but it has not been proven yet. It is not faith to look at the evidence and make conjectures. Creationism has no evidence. It's all faith. That doesn't make it wrong, just not a fact is all!


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> It IS absurd isn't it??  If what Catholics do for the Pope is worship, then most assuredly putting your hand over your heart before a flag is.  I think you may be getting it now!!! Or, probably not, because you just choose to hate.


It's the intent of their heart my dear. Ask Bavarian (the most die hard RC on here) what he feels about the pope (if he'd be honest). Then ask if he feels the same thing about the US flag.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> Yes. I'm rather glad I do have it, for if I followed your doctrines it might lead me straight to hell.


Must I guess what it is? Not the Bible, right? You DO know that UNA doesn't believe in the God you believe in, right? Why aren't you spending your time "evangelizing" her? You're supposed to...


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> It's ok. I never expected you to be consistent in your condemnations. Hypocrite.


I'm very consistent. It's hard to see that through those glasses that you bought at the indoctrination station...


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> I never said I thought I was smarter than god. Remember, I believe in god, just not a book that was written 1000's of years ago 'by god'.


If you say Jesus isn't God, the Bible is not from God, the miracles are fake and think you're going to Heaven without knowing the true God, you're implying that you're smarter than God...(even though you're really not).

You believe in "A" god, not THE God; you said that earlier by denying who Jesus is. It's hard to believe in the true God AND discount His Word to us unless you're in some remote part of the world w/o books, radio, internet, etc. God HAD to leave us ample proof of Himself or else He would not be able to condemn anyone for not believing in Him. 


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> How am I proof of Christian creation; is there some kind of spiritual bit in me? A magical organ? Is there some bit in me that isn't organic? No! Everything in me is biological, understood by science. We might not understand it all yet but that doesn't mean it's because of god. We're mapping the human genome right now, we're beginnin to understand us.


"Understood by science"? Then why hasn't science produced a human out of nothing. I'm not talking about cloning either. Make a human out of nothing. Why don't apes turn into humans if science says we came from them? Hmmmm? Science will always come up short. They're still hung up on which came first, the chicken or the egg.


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> I guess I'm still hung up on wanting facts rather than faith to prove things. Guess that's too much to ask for  why won't you except that you don't have facts? It doesn't take away from your faith, it doesn't make you wrong! I'll go first, I have to facts proving the god I believe in is right, and I don't have all the facts I need to prove that we all evolved from a common ancestor. I have faith in the former, and evidence to the latter.  But not verifiable proof....yet


Girlfriend, YOU HAVE FAITH! The problem is, it is misplaced, that's all. I'm just trying to show you whom you need to have that faith in. Paul said the same thing to some people who followed an unknown god. He showed them that their faith was misdirected (Acts 17:23). Jesus said that the people had Moses & the Prophets; that's all they needed to believe in Him. People today have that PLUS the Bible. (Game, set match!)

Ok then: What facts do you have for "believing your god is right" and what evidence for "a common ancestor"? I'm all ears (eyes on here)


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> If you say Jesus isn't God, the Bible is not from God, the miracles are fake and think you're going to Heaven without knowing the true God, you're implying that you're smarter than God...(even though you're really not).



How does that imply that I think I'm smarter than God??  I don't believe that a book it the Word of God so that means I think I'm smarter than him?  No...it means I don't believe in a book...



ItalianScallion said:


> You believe in "A" god, not THE God; you said that earlier by denying who Jesus is. It's hard to believe in the true God AND discount His Word to us unless you're in some remote part of the world w/o books, radio, internet, etc. God HAD to leave us ample proof of Himself or else He would not be able to condemn anyone for not believing in Him.



I don't believe in _your_ God which means I don't believe in your God's miracles...I never said that I believe in THE true God either...please stop putting words in my mouth...



ItalianScallion said:


> "Understood by science"? Then why hasn't science produced a human out of nothing. I'm not talking about cloning either. Make a human out of nothing. Why don't apes turn into humans if science says we came from them? Hmmmm? Science will always come up short. They're still hung up on which came first, the chicken or the egg.



Science can't 'make' a human...nor do I think we should.  Again...I've never said can do anything/knows everything...your beginning to resort to childish responses here.  And you should really figure out how evolution is theorized to work because it has become painfully obvious that you have absolutely no clue.

...BTW, the egg came first 



ItalianScallion said:


> Girlfriend, YOU HAVE FAITH! The problem is, it is misplaced, that's all. I'm just trying to show you whom you need to have that faith in. Paul said the same thing to some people who followed an unknown god. He showed them that their faith was misdirected (Acts 17:23). Jesus said that the people had Moses & the Prophets; that's all they needed to believe in Him. People today have that PLUS the Bible. (Game, set match!)



You can only say "game, set match" when you've won...and you haven't.  There isn't really a winner nor a loser here...other than when you claim facts aren't true



ItalianScallion said:


> Ok then: What facts do you have for "believing your god is right" and what evidence for "a common ancestor"? I'm all ears (eyes on here)



I think I must have mis-typed...i have no facts that "my god is right" however there is ample evidence that life evolved from a single ancestor...snakes with legs, chickens with dinosaur DNA, the shrinking of the Y chromosome............................I'm not here to prove evolution over creation...just to illustrate the fact that creation is faith not fact......not wrong......just not fact.


----------



## ItalianScallion

onel0126 said:


> *First, let me apologize to IS, yes I admit being wrong.*  After searching the thread in question it was Starman that included wax candles in a list among many other things as an being extra-biblical part of Catholic worship.  I due stand by my statement though that flags in Protestant churches are as extra-biblical as candles and statues.  I have no problem with flags being present as both the Vatican and US flags are present in Catholic churches--they should however NOT be on the altar.


No problem my friend. I just wanted to be sure I didn't say that.


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> How does that imply that I think I'm smarter than God??  I don't believe that a book it the Word of God so that means I think I'm smarter than him?  No...it means I don't believe in a book...


Listen to yourself. God said it is His Word and you say it isn't... You are dangerously contradicting the Words of Almighty God. Whether you believe in Him or not doesn't change the fact that He exists. My contention to you is to err on the side or safety. That is:
If my God exists, then you'll see Hell up close. 
If my God doesn't exist, you're safe.
Can you really afford to take that chance? (Please say no)...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> I don't believe in _your_ God which means I don't believe in your God's miracles...I never said that I believe in THE true God either...please stop putting words in my mouth...


 That's what I'm saying; You don't believe in the true God.  Now who's mis-reading here? 


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Science can't 'make' a human...nor do I think we should.  Again...I've never said can do anything/knows everything...your beginning to resort to childish responses here.  And you should really figure out how evolution is theorized to work because it has become painfully obvious that you have absolutely no clue....BTW, the egg came first


Let's look at who's clueless:
"Science can't make a human" but you follow their every word.
God can (did) make humans, but you don't follow His Word? 

Btw, the chicken came first...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> I think I must have mis-typed...i have no facts that "my god is right" however there is ample evidence that life evolved from a single ancestor...snakes with legs, chickens with dinosaur DNA, the shrinking of the Y chromosome............................I'm not here to prove evolution over creation...just to illustrate the fact that creation is faith not fact......not wrong......just not fact.


Ok but you still deny the evidence. You'll never believe unless you see something; but then the "something" shows up and you explain it away?


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> It's the intent of their heart my dear. Ask Bavarian (the most die hard RC on here) what he feels about the pope (if he'd be honest). Then ask if he feels the same thing about the US flag.



So you know the intentions of people's heart? You, IS, are no Jesus Christ. Again, your pride knows no bounds. By all means, ask Bavarian if he worships the pope. I'm interested in what he will tell you.



ItalianScallion said:


> Must I guess what it is? Not the Bible, right? You DO know that UNA doesn't believe in the God you believe in, right? Why aren't you spending your time "evangelizing" her? You're supposed to...



BOTH the bible AND the Church that Christ founded. Of course, having been Catholic as a child and my having stated this before, you would know that you are wrong when you say, "Not the Bible, right?" How disingenuous and deceitful of you. You're just going to have to get over the fact that others have different interpretations of the bible than you do.

As I said before, I preach the gospel by example. Unlike you, I don't beat people over the head with it.



ItalianScallion said:


> I'm very consistent. It's hard to see that through those glasses that you bought at the indoctrination station...



You just keep telling yourself that, IS.


----------



## hvp05

UNA said:


> I've never claimed that evolution is a fact, it is a theory which means there is evidence but it has not been proven yet.


Of all people to make that erroneous statement, I'm surprised you did.

Evolution is a fact.  It must be because there are only two possibilities:  either everything developed over time or everything was born in an instant.  That _some_ form of evolution took place is a given; what is debated (i.e., the theory) is the mechanism that controls it.





ItalianScallion said:


> Make a human out of nothing. Why don't apes turn into humans if science says we came from them?


You build a false construct then point to it to prove your claim.  Sorry IS, reality - most certainly good science - does not function that way.


----------



## Starman3000m

onel0126 said:


> *First, let me apologize to IS, yes I admit being wrong.*  After searching the thread in question it was Starman that included wax candles in a list among many other things as an being extra-biblical part of Catholic worship.  I due stand by my statement though that flags in Protestant churches are as extra-biblical as candles and statues.  I have no problem with flags being present as both the Vatican and US flags are present in Catholic churches--they should however NOT be on the altar.



Actually, the issue is not burning candles as a decorative display in church; the issue is lighting candles for a specific prayer petition(s) such as for the dead in purgatory or for a certain prayer request that the candle-lighter is bringing to an altar. Is it not the belief that when the parishioner walks away from the candle(s) he/she lit that the prayer request continues on as long as the candle continues burning?

The point is, lighting candles is another extra-biblical teaching. This then becomes another unecessary "ritual" that you begin to place faith in rather than just going straight to God in prayer and know by faith that He has heard your prayer(s) and petition(s) and will answer according to His Will and in His perfect timing.

Perhaps you can clear this up, onel0126; What is the purpose of lighting votive candles at an altar? Please share what the RCC teaches in this regard.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Listen to yourself. God said it is His Word and you say it isn't... You are dangerously contradicting the Words of Almighty God. Whether you believe in Him or not doesn't change the fact that He exists. My contention to you is to err on the side or safety. That is:
> If my God exists, then you'll see Hell up close.
> If my God doesn't exist, you're safe.
> Can you really afford to take that chance? (Please say no)...



I just don't think anyone should "believe" something _just in case_ since any god would know what's in the heart.



ItalianScallion said:


> That's what I'm saying; You don't believe in the true God.  Now who's mis-reading here?



No, I don't believe in _your_ God...your God =/= true god to anyone but you and those who agree with you.  Why can't you understand that?  Christianity if good for you and many others but not everyone.  I'm not trying to say I need proof to believe something (though I usually do  ) I'm just saying you can't say your god is right and mine is wrong because you don't have proof!  Is this really that tough to understand??



ItalianScallion said:


> Let's look at who's clueless:
> "Science can't make a human" but you follow their every word.
> God can (did) make humans, but you don't follow His Word?



God mad humans in the Bible, we don't know that is what really happened...back to the proof.  You don't need the proof to believe but you do need it in order to say you're right.



ItalianScallion said:


> Ok but you still deny the evidence. You'll never believe unless you see something; but then the "something" shows up and you explain it away?



No I don't, I can't deny what's not there....there is no evidence of creation, you can't use the creation story to prove creation, that's like defining a word using the word.


----------



## UNA

hvp05 said:


> Of all people to make that erroneous statement, I'm surprised you did.
> 
> Evolution is a fact.  It must be because there are only two possibilities:  either everything developed over time or everything was born in an instant.  That _some_ form of evolution took place is a given; what is debated (i.e., the theory) is the mechanism that controls it.



Hahahaha, I didn't intend to!  I knew if I started calling evolution a fact I'd have to prove it (and do the research) and end up having to defend something I'm not an expert it. 



hvp05 said:


> You build a false construct then point to it to prove your claim.  Sorry IS, reality - most certainly good science - does not function that way.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> So you know the intentions of people's heart? You, IS, are no Jesus Christ. Again, your pride knows no bounds. By all means, ask Bavarian if he worships the pope. I'm interested in what he will tell you.


Did I say that? See how women are? Now who's prideful with no bounds? I say one thing and you completely read something else into it. 


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> BOTH the bible AND the Church that Christ founded. Of course, having been Catholic as a child and my having stated this before, you would know that you are wrong when you say, "Not the Bible, right?" How disingenuous and deceitful of you. You're just going to have to get over the fact that others have different interpretations of the bible than you do.


We were not taught to read the Bible as Catholic kids. Never. Certain stories were selected for us to read out of the RCC library but that was all.

Sure, people have different interpretations of it but on primary Bible issues we cannot differ. Thats where I  with you. You'll deny clear Bible teachings so as to fit your church's doctrines, but then say it's ok because "it's just YOUR interpretation of it". So, when there is a discrepancy between the Bible and your church doctrines, who wins the argument in your mind? I just wanna hear you say it again baby doll... Jesus founded the Christian church, not the RCC as you firmly believe.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> As I said before, I preach the gospel by example. Unlike you, I don't beat people over the head with it.


So you don't like to do what Jude says to do? "...I felt compelled to write and urge you to *contend for the faith* that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people"? UNA needs you real bad, right now...


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> You build a false construct then point to it to prove your claim.  Sorry IS, reality - most certainly good science - does not function that way.


There's nothing false about what I said. They claim they have proof that we came from apes. I called them on it by saying what I said.


UNA said:


> I just don't think anyone should "believe" something _just in case_ since any god would know what's in the heart.


"Any god"? Absolutely not, since there's only one God. You won't see a miriad of gods when you die UNA. Oprah like theology will not get you to Heaven. That's the lie that many have believed. It's not how nice or good you are that gets you to Heaven, it's who you know. Any god won't work. There's only One that can save you. 

Humor me here: What if you meet God one day and He says to you: I've tried to get you to listen to the truth but you've denied me all the way; so depart from me, I never knew you"? Then what? As I've said: It's better to err on the side of safety...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> No, I don't believe in _your_ God...your God =/= true god to anyone but you and those who agree with you.  Why can't you understand that?  Christianity if good for you and many others but not everyone.  I'm not trying to say I need proof to believe something (though I usually do  ) I'm just saying you can't say your god is right and mine is wrong because you don't have proof!  Is this really that tough to understand??


Truth be said: You don't believe the proof that is all around you. I DO hear what you are saying but you're wrong, I'm sorry. I don't make the rules, I just relay them to people. You have the wrong god and I'm very concerned for you...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> God mad humans in the Bible, we don't know that is what really happened...back to the proof.  You don't need the proof to believe but you do need it in order to say you're right.


How do you know that your god is right? Is it a feeling? Is there some documentation that explains why your god it valid? What is your belief system? Remember though; your proof has to stand up to a book that has been proven by physical & spiritual evidence that it is from God. 


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> No I don't, I can't deny what's not there....there is no evidence of creation, you can't use the creation story to prove creation, that's like defining a word using the word.


I'm not using the creation story to prove creation. I'm using it to prove it's Creator's existence.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> "Any god"? Absolutely not, since there's only one God. You won't see a miriad of gods when you die UNA. Oprah like theology will not get you to Heaven. That's the lie that many have believed. It's not how nice or good you are that gets you to Heaven, it's who you know. Any god won't work. There's only One that can save you.



I meant that (as far as I know) everyone who believes in a god believes that god knows the true heart.  I can't pretend to believe the Bible 'just in case' because there would be no point.  I personally believe in one god but I do believe that god manifests differently for everyone, giving them what they _need_ in a  god. .....and I don't think the "it's who you know" kind of heaven is one that i really want to go to anyways, I work in that world, I don't want to spend eternity in it 



ItalianScallion said:


> Humor me here: What if you meet God one day and He says to you: I've tried to get you to listen to the truth but you've denied me all the way; so depart from me, I never knew you"? Then what? As I've said: It's better to err on the side of safety...



You don't get it, I don't believe in that god!  But I suppose if that's how he turned out?  I'd be screwed!  I just can't believe that god, with all the horrible things that happen in the world; murder, genocide, rape....he's keep me out because I didn't believe *exactly* what he told people to tell other people to tell other people to write down to tell other people to tell other people..................to tell me to believe in.......



ItalianScallion said:


> Truth be said: You don't believe the proof that is all around you. I DO hear what you are saying but you're wrong, I'm sorry. I don't make the rules, I just relay them to people. You have the wrong god and I'm very concerned for you...



THERE IS NO PROOF!  Only faith!  Proof is seen, heard, smelled, felt (physically).  I don't believe something just because it written, I believe what I (or someone else) can prove.



ItalianScallion said:


> How do you know that your god is right? Is it a feeling? Is there some documentation that explains why your god it valid? What is your belief system? Remember though; your proof has to stand up to a book that has been proven by physical & spiritual evidence that it is from God.



I don't know my god is right!  That's the difference between you and I.  I have an _idea_ about god, I don't claim to be right nor to have imaginary proof!  As to what my belief system is?  That's to vague a question...ask me something specific.  I know all about your beliefs, it's only fair you know about mine! 



ItalianScallion said:


> I'm not using the creation story to prove creation. I'm using it to prove it's Creator's existence.



You're using a t-shirt to prove there exists a JC Penny when I could have gotten it at Kohl's?  The fact that we exists doesn't prove that there is a Christian God (or ANY god)!


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> I meant that (as far as I know) everyone who believes in a god believes that god knows the true heart.  I can't pretend to believe the Bible 'just in case' because there would be no point.  I personally believe in one god but I do believe that god manifests differently for everyone, giving them what they _need_ in a  god. .....and I don't think the "it's who you know" kind of heaven is one that i really want to go to anyways, I work in that world, I don't want to spend eternity in it


So if you won't believe the Bible just in case there is a Hell, you will seal your fate by what you believe so I'll not press you on this any further...

One last time; there aren't any other gods so they CAN'T know your true heart. Deny the only God and there is only one default: Satan. It's your choice. Either choose God or get the alternative. What you & I think does NOT matter. What matters is what God has said in His Word to us. Besides, you've just said that God is not worth knowing because He let's bad things happen to people. God won't force you to believe in Him but He won't tolerate any other gods in His world either.


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> You don't get it, I don't believe in that god!  But I suppose if that's how he turned out?  *I'd be screwed!*  I just can't believe that god, with all the horrible things that happen in the world; murder, genocide, rape....he's keep me out because I didn't believe *exactly* what he told people to tell other people to tell other people to write down to tell other people to tell other people..................to tell me to believe in.......


As long as you understand the bolded words, my work with you is done.
As for the latter words about rape, murders, etc., you have to properly understand why He allows these things to happen. Until you do, you WILL look at God in the wrong way (just as you are currently doing)...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> I don't know my god is right!  That's the difference between you and I.  I have an _idea_ about god, I don't claim to be right nor to have imaginary proof!  As to what my belief system is?  That's to vague a question...ask me something specific.  I know all about your beliefs, it's only fair you know about mine!


I asked you about your beliefs woman, now tell me what I want to know or I'll torment you like I do to Radiant1!  Spill it woman! Give me the 2 minute tour of your beliefs and be specific please. 


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> You're using a t-shirt to prove there exists a JC Penny when I could have gotten it at Kohl's?  The fact that we exists doesn't prove that there is a Christian God (or ANY god)!


You've got the wrong T shirt, that's all...My T shirt says made in Heaven...


----------



## hvp05

ItalianScallion said:


> There's nothing false about what I said. They claim they have proof that we came from apes. I called them on it by saying what I said.


In that case, since you are filled with the Spirit, go part the Chesapeake.

Don't worry, I can wait.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> One last time; there aren't any other gods so they CAN'T know your true heart.



But if your god is the true god then He will know my true heart and know I'm believing "just in case" which doesn't count.  I don't think you're understanding what I'm typing...



ItalianScallion said:


> Besides, you've just said that God is not worth knowing because He let's bad things happen to people.



I didn't say god wasn't worth knowing, I said I don't believe in your god because I feel like he'd interfere on things but he _chooses _not to...so I believe in a hands-off god.  Sounds like you're not reading my posts completely, or have developed selective memory loss



ItalianScallion said:


> As long as you understand the bolded words, my work with you is done.



No, I don't believe that I'm really screwed...I think you missed the context of what I wrote.



ItalianScallion said:


> I asked you about your beliefs woman, now tell me what I want to know or I'll torment you like I do to Radiant1!  Spill it woman! Give me the 2 minute tour of your beliefs and be specific please.



Excuse me?  I will not be spoken to like that.  And to the best of my knowledge, you've never tormented Radiant1, just annoyed her.  If you would like to know specifics about my beliefs I will give them to you but a) I will not type out a long winded explanation just for you to rip apart and b) I will not be demanded to do anything.  Who exactly do you think you are?  Whether you think I'm going to hell or not, you do not have any right to speak down to me and I will not tolerate it.  Was that supposed to be funny?  Because in the current context of our conversation, I don't think it's appropriate, as I obviously took it as an insult...



ItalianScallion said:


> You've got the wrong T shirt, that's all...My T shirt says made in Heaven...



I didn't think you would understand that.......


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> In that case, since you are filled with the Spirit, go part the Chesapeake.
> Don't worry, I can wait.


Honestly, if God wanted me to do it, it would happen but since He doesn't, it prolly won't. Besides, Moses already did that so it wouldn't be right and the Bay Bridge accomplishes the same purpose so why show off?


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> I didn't say god wasn't worth knowing, I said I don't believe in your god because I feel like he'd interfere on things but he _chooses _not to...so I believe in a hands-off god.  Sounds like you're not reading my posts completely, or have developed selective memory loss


It sounds like you want God to do things your way or else...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Excuse me?  I will not be spoken to like that.  And to the best of my knowledge, you've never tormented Radiant1, just annoyed her.  If you would like to know specifics about my beliefs I will give them to you but a) I will not type out a long winded explanation just for you to rip apart and b) I will not be demanded to do anything.  Who exactly do you think you are?  Whether you think I'm going to hell or not, you do not have any right to speak down to me and I will not tolerate it.  *Was that supposed to be funny?*  Because in the current context of our conversation, I don't think it's appropriate, as I obviously took it as an insult...


Now who's not reading this stuff right? In case you missed it and you missed it BIG TIME my dear:
    
Of course I was kidding sweetheart. I'd never talk to anyone on here that way. Tell me whatever you can. It helps me to better understand you.


----------



## hvp05

ItalianScallion said:


> so why show off?


If you can't/won't do it, why should anyone believe you?


----------



## Radiant1

ItalianScallion said:


> *It's the intent of their heart my dear.* Ask Bavarian (the most die hard RC on here) what he feels about the pope (if he'd be honest). Then ask if he feels the same thing about the US flag.





Radiant1 said:


> *So you know the intentions of people's heart?* You, IS, are no Jesus Christ. Again, your pride knows no bounds. By all means, ask Bavarian if he worships the pope. I'm interested in what he will tell you.





ItalianScallion said:


> *Did I say that? *See how women are? Now who's prideful with no bounds? I say one thing and you completely read something else into it.



*Yes, you did say that.* I'll ignore your misogynistic comment. It's there for everyone to see, as is your prideful boast.



ItalianScallion said:


> So, when there is a discrepancy between the Bible and your church doctrines, who wins the argument in your mind? I just wanna hear you say it again baby doll... Jesus founded the Christian church, not the RCC as you firmly believe.



When understood properly there are no discrepencies, and only the Catholic and Orthodox can trace their history back to Peter and Jesus; Matthew 16:18. The church of IS cannot.



ItalianScallion said:


> So you don't like to do what Jude says to do? "...I felt compelled to write and urge you to *contend for the faith* that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people"? UNA needs you real bad, right now...



_Jude 3 - Beloved, although I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones. _

This was written in reference to the Gnostics at the end of the 1st c. Even so, contending for the faith does not mean beat people over the head and cram the gospel down their throat. I continue to deplore your tactics and will not use them. UNA is free to ask me anything she wants and can be assured of getting a true and reasonable answer without being hounded.

As an aside, make note of what Jude says here -- "handed down to the holy ones". Surely the bible did not exist when Jude wrote this, or this epistle wouldn't have made it into the bible. It is apparent that the bible was not Jude's sole authority. You will brush that off, but I point it out nonetheless because...I contend for the faith that was handed down to me from the holy ones. 



UNA said:


> And to the best of my knowledge, you've never tormented Radiant1, just annoyed her.



You would be correct.  IS only likes to think he is a torment and takes great pride in it.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> It sounds like you want God to do things your way or else...



No, that's what you see when you read my posts but that is not what I'm posting.  I say what I mean, no hidden meanings so stop reading into things.



ItalianScallion said:


> Now who's not reading this stuff right? In case you missed it and you missed it BIG TIME my dear:
> 
> Of course I was kidding sweetheart. I'd never talk to anyone on here that way. Tell me whatever you can. It helps me to better understand you.



Well that's how it reads when I can't hear you...

Like i said, if you want to know ask a question...I'm not going to take half an hour to type up a big, long narrative...


----------



## toppick08

baydoll said:


> ..as we know it.
> 
> From one of my favorite Pastors:
> 
> <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xoMcSTlvFzA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
> 
> I have to be away for a while (I know, I know! This will disappoint libby and Radiant and a few others on here I'm sure, lol!) so I won't be able to respond to this thread. But I do hope you will take the time to watch this video (he is an excellent Bible teacher) and take everything Pastor J. D. says in this video to heart. Please prayerfully consider what he says. In the meantime, I will be praying for everyone here. God bless you all and I will hopefully see you all real soon.



I agree....my amaryllis came back this year..


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> If you can't/won't do it, why should anyone believe you?


Very few people in the Bible did miracles. They were not meant to be a side show. Some here wouldn't believe me even if I could do them.


----------



## ItalianScallion

Radiant1 said:


> *Yes, you did say that.* I'll ignore your misogynistic comment. It's there for everyone to see, as is your prideful boast.


My saying that it's the intent of their heart doesn't mean I know it. You've stretched it into that...just like you do to Bible verses. What I DO know is what I've heard from the actual people with whom I've argued this point for the last 22 years. Let's see how many more names you can call me. I'm enjoying it.


			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> When understood properly there are no discrepencies, and only the Catholic and Orthodox can trace their history back to Peter and Jesus; Matthew 16:18. The church of IS cannot.


Keyword: "WHEN". Just for you:

"Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, *what is the true origin of the Catholic Church*?"

*In A.D. 325*, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. *Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.*

Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse – not everyone would agree to forsake their religious beliefs and instead embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities..."

There's your RCC origin. Wonder where Jesus & Pope Pedro were in 325 AD?



			
				Radiant1 said:
			
		

> As an aside, make note of what Jude says here -- "handed down to the holy ones". Surely the bible did not exist when Jude wrote this, or this epistle wouldn't have made it into the bible. *It is apparent that the bible was not Jude's sole authority*. You will brush that off, but I point it out nonetheless because...I contend for the faith that was handed down to me from the holy ones.


See why I have to contend with you as I do? You're incorrect about Jude. YES, the 66 Bible books had not been "compiled" when Jude was written BUT most of the books of Scripture were written & available to the people. What Jude used were those writings that would later become the Bible and a few outside sources for his letter. Being a Jew, he probably had been taught many of the basic Scriptures. Next?


----------



## hvp05

ItalianScallion said:


> Very few people in the Bible did miracles. They were not meant to be a side show. Some here wouldn't believe me even if I could do them.


Yet you expect scientists to give you a side show by creating a universe in a lab or evolving a chimp into a human overnight.  You know you wouldn't believe it if they did; that's what _faith_ is all about.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				hvp05 said:
			
		

> ItalianScallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very few people in the Bible did miracles. They were not meant to be a side show. Some here wouldn't believe me even if I could do them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you expect scientists to give you a side show by creating a universe in a lab or evolving a chimp into a human overnight.  You know you wouldn't believe it if they did; that's what _faith_ is all about.
Click to expand...


Maybe you saying it another way will help  people like him will never get it. Not that he's wrong since I don't know any better than him but I know no one knows. He thinks he's got special knowledge I guess.......


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> Yet you expect scientists to give you a side show by creating a universe in a lab or evolving a chimp into a human overnight.  You know you wouldn't believe it if they did; that's what _faith_ is all about.


God already gave an ample "sideshow". Archaeology alone has discovered zillions of places & artifacts that the Bible spoke of from the beginning of time, yet some scientific nerds try to discount it. They're the ones claiming to know more than God, so why shouldn't they put up or shut up? If they don't know, they should just say: we're not sure...but they don't, because they have an agenda. God has done His part.

Many miracles were done and recorded in books. I'm still waiting for science to do the same things. No faith was needed in Jesus' days. The people saw the miracles and yet many still refused to believe in Jesus, so He pulled out His "Ace of Spades" and said: "even if someone rises from the dead they won't believe Him". And He was right. They didn't! So why do them today when they will have the same result? If Jesus thought more miracles would make the rest of them believe, He surely would have done more. 

Now if science makes something from dirt, OMG! It will be a monumental event and the whole world would sheepishly follow it. See? 


UNA said:


> Maybe you saying it another way will help  people like him will never get it. Not that he's wrong since I don't know any better than him but I know no one knows. He thinks he's got special knowledge I guess.......


Who doesn't get it? You sure talk a lot for someone who has no firm backing.
You will see the special knowledge that we have one day UNA. If you weren't such a doubter, you could have it too.

I'm still waiting to hear your beliefs. Tell me the major points like I asked you last night. What's your god's name? Describe him. What are your basic precepts? What source of truth do you have?


----------



## hvp05

UNA said:


> Maybe you saying it another way will help


I know.  The difference is that I do not intend to convert him - or anyone else, for that matter - but to get him to admit that there _might_ be a chance, however small, that he is not 100% correct.





ItalianScallion said:


> Archaeology alone has discovered zillions of places & artifacts that the Bible spoke of from the beginning of time, yet some scientific nerds try to discount it. They're the ones claiming to know more than God, so why shouldn't they put up or shut up?


Scientists were not the ones to make the first claims - the believers were.  You persist in claiming the two are mutually exclusive, that they "know more than God", and they are most certainly not.




> So why do them today when they will have the same result?


I cannot speak for anyone else, but if I saw a man who I believed to be dead walking around after he had been sealed in his tomb, I would at least listen to what he had to say.  




> Now if science makes something from dirt, OMG! It will be a monumental event and the whole world would sheepishly follow it. See?


Sheepishly?  But that's what you wanted - science to recreate the 'miracles'.  You are reaffirming that you are as hard-headed as the best of them; for better or worse, nothing will steer you from what you want to believe.  I hope it works out for you, because if not you will have wasted an awful lot of time fretting over nothing.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> We can see evolution in action right now! There are species that a nearly changing before our eyes! I've never claimed that evolution is a fact, it is a theory which means there is evidence but it has not been proven yet. It is not faith to look at the evidence and make conjectures. Creationism has no evidence. It's all faith. That doesn't make it wrong, just not a fact is all!



Testimony is considered evidence in a court. Do you not believe that?

Genesis is written testimony of creation, so there is evidence of creation.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Hahahaha, I didn't intend to!  I knew if I started calling evolution a fact I'd have to prove it (and do the research) and end up having to defend something I'm not an expert it.



So you "played it safe." 

And evolution is not a fact and is not generally accepted.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

hvp05 said:


> In that case, since you are filled with the Spirit, go part the Chesapeake.
> 
> Don't worry, I can wait.



If he did, would you believe? Or would you try to come up with some scientific explanation?


----------



## hvp05

2ndAmendment said:


> Genesis is written testimony of creation, so there is evidence of creation.


I'm surprised at you, 2A, to make such a silly statement.

None of the people who wrote Genesis _witnessed_ the creation.  Neither Adam nor Eve personally recorded their accounts.  That makes Genesis hearsay, and as the definition says...

> Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally *not admissible as testimony*.






2ndAmendment said:


> And evolution is not a fact and is not generally accepted.


That depends on the audience, of course.  Among scientists, the vast majority do support evolution, and among the general public, people are almost evenly split between belief and disbelief with a sizable chunk unsure.  I know it's another reason you despise the RCC, but it has supported evolution for over 60 years.  You, Mormons and JWs actually do have something in common with your refusal to accept it.  




2ndAmendment said:


> If he did, would you believe? Or would you try to come up with some scientific explanation?


I would look for a scientific explanation first because that's how my mind works.    But following that, if there truly was no other explanation than it being paranormal, I suppose I would have to believe that it was what it appeared to be.  Frankly, I think you and the other believers would be all in support of such inquiry, otherwise people could be fooled by any old magician who came along doing a few tricks.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Who doesn't get it? You sure talk a lot for someone who has no firm backing.



What don't I have form backing for again?  And what do you HAVE firm backing for again??



ItalianScallion said:


> I'm still waiting to hear your beliefs. Tell me the major points like I asked you last night. What's your god's name? Describe him. What are your basic precepts? What source of truth do you have?



I was waiting for a question other than "sum up your whole belief system into a forum post...

_What's your god's name?_  My god doesn't have a name, didn't know it needed one...

_Describe him._  My god is also all knowing but is 100% hands-off.  Both male and female.  Within all things, you, me, my cats, that tree, rocks, water, air....everything.

_What are your basic precepts?_  Harm none.  Figure that pretty much sums it up don't you think?

_What source of truth do you have?_  I don't have a source of truth, don't need a book to tell me what I feel.  It's faith (you know, that thing you think you've replaced with you Bible "facts"?)  I have no proof, that's why I don't go around telling people I'm right, they're wrong and that I'm here to save them!  I have no more nor no less proof than anyone else...just an idea.


----------



## UNA

hvp05 said:


> I know.  The difference is that I do not intend to convert him - or anyone else, for that matter - but to get him to admit that there _might_ be a chance, however small, that he is not 100% correct.



Oh no!!  I'm not trying to convert anyone!  I could care less what people choose to believe.  I came in here with some questions and discovered that many people in here didn't know the difference between facts and faith!  That's all!   If we could all just become OK with the idea that we may not have it all figured out I think we'd all be a lot better off...I know I don't know...and I'm fine with that!

Sorry, didn't mean to give the impression I was trying to 'convert' anyone!


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Testimony is considered evidence in a court. Do you not believe that?
> 
> Genesis is written testimony of creation, so there is evidence of creation.



First: eyewitness evidence has been known to be dead wrong.

Second: testimony of creation?  really?  who was there?  oh yeah, god _told_ us, from a book about it...yeah...

Like I've said, I'm not saying creationism is wrong (I just don't believe it...you do...that's fine) just that it's not a fact so you can't go around telling other people they're wrong!


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> So you "played it safe."
> 
> And evolution is not a fact and is not generally accepted.



not generally accepted by whom???


----------



## hvp05

UNA said:


> Oh no!!  I'm not trying to convert anyone!


Why did you think I was talking about you?    I was talking about the difference between IS and myself.





UNA said:


> First: eyewitness evidence has been known to be dead wrong.


Then there's that.


----------



## UNA

hvp05 said:


> Why did you think I was talking about you?    I was talking about the difference between IS and myself.



Oh, IDK...guess I was doing too many things at once 

Easy to confuse who is arguing which side sometimes


----------



## 2ndAmendment

hvp05 said:


> I'm surprised at you, 2A, to make such a silly statement.
> 
> None of the people who wrote Genesis _witnessed_ the creation.  Neither Adam nor Eve personally recorded their accounts.  That makes Genesis hearsay, and as the definition says...


The written testimony of someone, especially someone who is deceased, is accepted as testimony.


hvp05 said:


> That depends on the audience, of course.  Among scientists, the vast majority do support evolution, and among the general public, people are almost evenly split between belief and disbelief with a sizable chunk unsure.  I know it's another reason you despise the RCC, but it has supported evolution for over 60 years.  You, Mormons and JWs actually do have something in common with your refusal to accept it.


Where have I ever given the indication that I despise Catholics? That is just plain false and you owe me a retraction.


hvp05 said:


> I would look for a scientific explanation first because that's how my mind works.    But following that, if there truly was no other explanation than it being paranormal, I suppose I would have to believe that it was what it appeared to be.  Frankly, I think you and the other believers would be all in support of such inquiry, otherwise people could be fooled by any old magician who came along doing a few tricks.



You and doubting Thomas. 

The Apostles were alive when they wrote their testimonies, yet you refuse to believe their testimony.


----------



## hvp05

2ndAmendment said:


> The written testimony of someone, especially someone who is deceased, is accepted as testimony.


They still were not personal witnesses.  For all it's worth, you could write an account and claim it valid and admissable because you were "inspired".




> Where have I ever given the indication that I despise Catholics? That is just plain false and you owe me a retraction.


I did not say Catholics, did I?  I said the RCC.  If you don't despise the organization, good, I apologize; however, it is clear that other biblical literalists do feel that way.




> You and doubting Thomas.
> 
> The Apostles were alive when they wrote their testimonies, yet you refuse to believe their testimony.


Now _you_ are not believing _me_!    How do you know what's in my heart better than I do?  How do you know how I would react if a miracle occurred?


----------



## 2ndAmendment

hvp05 said:


> ...
> Now _you_ are not believing _me_!    How do you know what's in my heart better than I do?  How do you know how I would react if a miracle occurred?



You believe the Apostles? Then you believe Jesus is God come as man, that He died for the sins of mankind, that He is resurrected, and is coming back to reign on the earth. Right?


----------



## UNA

Guess 2A gave up on me


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Guess 2A gave up on me



Nah. Until you die, there is still hope for you.

THE GOD of the Bible loves you even if you do not believe in Him.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Nah. Until you die, there is still hope for you.
> 
> THE GOD of the Bible loves you even if you do not believe in Him.



good to know.

just remember, I'm not here to convert nor to say anyone is wrong.  Just to _try_ to get people (like you and others) to recognize that there is no proof of any miracles.  But you can have faith in whatever you want!!!  I'm glad you have strong faith, faith helps us get through dark times!  So I'm happy you have that!   Just don't go around calling other people wrong, since you don't know


----------



## hvp05

2ndAmendment said:


> You believe the Apostles? Then you believe Jesus is God come as man, that He died for the sins of mankind, that He is resurrected, and is coming back to reign on the earth. Right?


We're talking about the Apostles now?  I thought we were still on seeing and believing miracles...





2ndAmendment said:


> Nah. Until you die, there is still hope for you.


  Good for you, UNA!

Others among us, however, have no hope.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				hvp05 said:
			
		

> Good for you, UNA!
> 
> Others among us, however, have no hope.



W00t!


----------



## 2ndAmendment

hvp05 said:


> We're talking about the Apostles now?  I thought we were still on seeing and believing miracles...


Hmmm. Seems someone was not reading.



hvp05 said:


> Good for you, UNA!
> 
> Others among us, however, have no hope.



You are dead? Sorry.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> good to know.
> 
> just remember, I'm not here to convert nor to say anyone is wrong.  Just to _try_ to get people (like you and others) to recognize that there is no proof of any miracles.  But you can have faith in whatever you want!!!  I'm glad you have strong faith, faith helps us get through dark times!  So I'm happy you have that!   Just don't go around calling other people wrong, since you don't know



You ARE wrong, but I respect your choice to be wrong.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				2ndAmendment said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> good to know.
> 
> just remember, I'm not here to convert nor to say anyone is wrong.  Just to _try_ to get people (like you and others) to recognize that there is no proof of any miracles.  But you can have faith in whatever you want!!!  I'm glad you have strong faith, faith helps us get through dark times!  So I'm happy you have that!   Just don't go around calling other people wrong, since you don't know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ARE wrong, but I respect your choice to be wrong.
Click to expand...


See? This is where I take issue with you. I've never said you were wrong because I know religion is largely a matter if opinion, which we are all entitled. How can you say I'm wrong? How do you know, I mean, really know, 100%, fact no matter what? You don't, and neither do I! You can't tell me I'm wrong, you can disagree with me but that's it!


----------



## hvp05

2ndAmendment said:


> Hmmm. Seems someone was not reading.


See, UNA?  No hope for me.  




> You are dead? Sorry.


  News to me!

The apartment I am in certainly could be considered hell... but at least I still have Internet.


----------



## hvp05

UNA said:


> ... I know religion is largely a matter if opinion, which we are all entitled. How can you say I'm wrong? How do you know, I mean, really know, 100%, fact no matter what? You don't, and neither do I!


I feel the same way.

Humans are, quite obviously, flawed.  Not one of us can see reality perfectly clearly - our expectations, prejudices and personalities alter things throughout the entire process.  Different people can simultaneously view a physical event and come away with a variety of accounts; when something paranormal occurs, things really become sketchy.  Funny enough, the Bible admits we are imperfect... yet if/when we fail to hit the spiritual nail on the head, we are doomed.

The only two conclusions I can draw from this are that god either designed the system to be exclusive _or_ there is no deity and it's all in our heads.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> See? This is where I take issue with you. I've never said you were wrong because I know religion is largely a matter if opinion, which we are all entitled. How can you say I'm wrong? How do you know, I mean, really know, 100%, fact no matter what? You don't, and neither do I! You can't tell me I'm wrong, you can disagree with me but that's it!



I do not doubt. Since I have no doubt; I cannot be wrong, so you must be.


----------



## hvp05

2ndAmendment said:


> I do not doubt. Since I have no doubt; I cannot be wrong, so you must be.


There you have it.  Thousands of years of questioning and countless ideas tossed about resulting in as many heated arguments... all to come down to one post of seventeen words.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				hvp05 said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I know religion is largely a matter if opinion, which we are all entitled. How can you say I'm wrong? How do you know, I mean, really know, 100%, fact no matter what? You don't, and neither do I!
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the same way.
> 
> Humans are, quite obviously, flawed.  Not one of us can see reality perfectly clearly - our expectations, prejudices and personalities alter things throughout the entire process.  Different people can simultaneously view a physical event and come away with a variety of accounts; when something paranormal occurs, things really become sketchy.  Funny enough, the Bible admits we are imperfect... yet if/when we fail to hit the spiritual nail on the head, we are doomed.
> 
> The only two conclusions I can draw from this are that god either designed the system to be exclusive _or_ there is no deity and it's all in our heads.
Click to expand...


Or, god just isn't like that at all! Who knows? Maybe god is 'cool and groovy'


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				2ndAmendment said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> See? This is where I take issue with you. I've never said you were wrong because I know religion is largely a matter if opinion, which we are all entitled. How can you say I'm wrong? How do you know, I mean, really know, 100%, fact no matter what? You don't, and neither do I! You can't tell me I'm wrong, you can disagree with me but that's it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not doubt. Since I have no doubt; I cannot be wrong, so you must be.
Click to expand...


What if I said I have no doubt? Then I'd be right!

You 'logic' is so faulty I actually feel bad for you...

There are people that have no doubt the sky is purple! No doubt they should kill cops, beat women and children. No doubt they should murder Americans/infidels! What about all those people? I'm pretty sure hitler had no doubt he was right. 

Having no doubt doesn't make you right. 

Seriously?! I'm surprised you'd say somethimg THAT ridiculous!!!!!!!!!


----------



## 2ndAmendment

hvp05 said:


> There you have it.  Thousands of years of questioning and countless ideas tossed about resulting in as many heated arguments... all to come down to one post of seventeen words.


It is faith you know. And if there is doubt, then there is no faith. So there is faith or there is no faith.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				2ndAmendment said:
			
		

> hvp05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you have it.  Thousands of years of questioning and countless ideas tossed about resulting in as many heated arguments... all to come down to one post of seventeen words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is faith you know. And if there is doubt, then there is no faith. So there is faith or there is no faith.
Click to expand...


Doubt does equal no faith but it doesn't equal being right!


----------



## Starman3000m

hvp05 said:


> ...The only two conclusions I can draw from this are that *god* either *designed the system to be exclusive *_or_ there is no deity and it's all in our heads.



Exclusive!  There is Only One God - There Is No Other.



> Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me. (Hosea 13:4)
> 
> and a few other notations:
> (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7; Deuteronomy 6:14; Daniel 3:29; Mark 12:31)



The New Testament Jesus was/is the manifestation of God and it is He whom we are to place personal faith in for the Salvation of our souls. All other deities and spiritual "helpers" are misguided attempts at trying to gain eternal life that Only Christ Alone can give.

*There Is Only One Truth*  (John 14:6)


----------



## hvp05

UNA said:


> Doubt does equal no faith but it doesn't equal being right!


----------



## hvp05

Starman3000m said:


> Exclusive!  There is Only One God - There Is No Other.


Pssst... That wasn't supposed to be a compliment. 


What does "3000m" signify?


----------



## Starman3000m

hvp05 said:


> Pssst... That wasn't supposed to be a compliment.
> 
> 
> What does "3000m" signify?



No special significance:
My son helped me set up my screen name about 12 years ago when I was beginning to set up an e-mail account.  I liked the movie "Starman" and tried to set up my account as "Starman1" to no avail since that name had been taken. I tried "Starman2," "Starman3," then gave up after a few more tries and just entered "Starman3000m"  It took that time! LOL

The "Starman*3000*" only signifies the numeration that I believed wouldn't have been taken and the "*m*" signifies my first name which is Mike.  I use this screen name for this and all other forum IDs in which I participate.  And - now you know!


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> I know.  The difference is that I do not intend to convert him - or anyone else, for that matter - but to get him to admit that there _might_ be a chance, however small, that he is not 100% correct.


There's no way for me to say this without sounding arrogant and all those other names that Radiant1 affectionately calls me, but here goes: 

There is no chance that "what I quote from the Bible" is wrong, because they're not my words. Sure, I can be wrong in my understanding of them but not very often because I've deeply studied it for the last 22 years. The things I fully understand, I speak out boldly on. Those that I don't fully understand, I speak cautiously on and make it known that I'm not sure. 


			
				hvp05 said:
			
		

> I cannot speak for anyone else, but if I saw a man who I believed to be dead walking around after he had been sealed in his tomb, I would at least listen to what he had to say.


Listening is good, but would you follow him, tell the world about him and die for him? 


			
				hvp05 said:
			
		

> You are reaffirming that you are as hard-headed as the best of them; for better or worse, nothing will steer you from what you want to believe.  I hope it works out for you, because if not you will have wasted an awful lot of time fretting over nothing.


That's correct. I've been saying that for the last 22 years. IF I'm wrong, I've wasted a lot of time over nothing, but so what? NOW; If I'm right and you're wrong, can you handle Hell forever? No one can. This is why I do what I do with such passion and put up with all the abuse I put up with on here...


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> What don't I have form backing for again?  And what do you HAVE firm backing for again??


God. The only God. The one true God. The Words of God.


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> _What's your god's name?_  My god doesn't have a name, didn't know it needed one...
> _Describe him._  My god is also all knowing but is 100% hands-off.  Both male and female.  Within all things, you, me, my cats, that tree, rocks, water, air....everything.
> _What are your basic precepts?_  Harm none.  Figure that pretty much sums it up don't you think?
> _What source of truth do you have?_  I don't have a source of truth, don't need a book to tell me what I feel.  It's faith (you know, that thing you think you've replaced with you Bible "facts"?)  I have no proof, that's why I don't go around telling people I'm right, they're wrong and that I'm here to save them!  I have no more nor no less proof than anyone else...just an idea.


If your god doesn't have a name, it can't help or save you from eternal punishment. And FEELINGS???!!  In case you're totally ignorant, you have nothing UNA. You talk a lot on here, then back up and say you have no proof or backing for your emotionally bankrupt & empty *feelings*??? 

God is not anyone YOU & I want Him to be. If you make him that, you are lost and have NO God. (Not to mention disrespecting the true God).


UNA said:


> First: eyewitness evidence has been known to be dead wrong. Second: testimony of creation?  really?  who was there?  oh yeah, god _told_ us, from a book about it...yeah...


When the eyewitness is God, you have no argument against Him. You lose...


UNA said:


> See? This is where I take issue with you. I've never said you were wrong because I know religion is largely a matter if opinion, which we are all entitled. How can you say I'm wrong? How do you know, I mean, really know, 100%, fact no matter what? You don't, and neither do I! You can't tell me I'm wrong, you can disagree with me but that's it!


I'll say it again; You're completely wrong. I DO know that, "100%". YOUR religion is a matter of YOUR opinion. Your opinion and anyone else who has an imagination... Like I told hvp, if you're right there's no problem. BUT if you're wrong, can you tolerate Hell forever? No one can so you'd better err on the side of safety and learn who the only true God is...


----------



## hvp05

Starman3000m said:


> And - now you know!


Hi, Mike.  





ItalianScallion said:


> Listening is good, but would you follow him, tell the world about him and die for him?


That would depend on what he had to say.  




> IF I'm wrong, I've wasted a lot of time over nothing, but so what? NOW; If I'm right and you're wrong, can you handle Hell forever? No one can.


You are working on the loaded assumption that there are only two possibilities:  either _your_ god exists or there is nothing.  I do not need to tell you there is an entire spectrum of things in between.  We could *both* be wrong.  How would feel about that?  Wouldn't it be a biatch if we ended up being neighbors in hell?


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> God. The only God. The one true God. The Words of God.



So what don't I have firm backing for again?  And you're saying you have firm backing for God?  Like what?  Physical evidence?  Mathematics??



ItalianScallion said:


> If your god doesn't have a name, it can't help or save you from eternal punishment. And FEELINGS???!!  In case you're totally ignorant, you have nothing UNA. You talk a lot on here, then back up and say you have no proof or backing for your emotionally bankrupt & empty *feelings*???



So.....your god can only save you because he has a name?  Hmmm...didn't think that's how it worked...

"emotionally bankrupt & empty"???  wow!  I can honestly say no one has ever accused me of that before!  Mind explaining your attacks here?

And I SAID I don't have proof for my god, no more nor less than you do!  What I DO have proof for is the science.  Again, *I* know the difference between facts and faith.



ItalianScallion said:


> God is not anyone YOU & I want Him to be. If you make him that, you are lost and have NO God. (Not to mention disrespecting the true God).



Funny, because I think I just said I do have one...



ItalianScallion said:


> When the eyewitness is God, you have no argument against Him. You lose...



So what if I told you I witnessed "water turning to blood killing all fish and other water life".  You know...there _are_ an awful lot of frogs around my house.



ItalianScallion said:


> I'll say it again; You're completely wrong. I DO know that, "100%". YOUR religion is a matter of YOUR opinion. Your opinion and anyone else who has an imagination... Like I told hvp, if you're right there's no problem. BUT if you're wrong, can you tolerate Hell forever? No one can so you'd better err on the side of safety and learn who the only true God is...



Well then I guess I'll run off to church right now and start lying to myself, God and my fellow parishioners...really?  Is this what you're saying I do?  I'm not going to magically believe something just because a forum-ite told me I was going to burn eternally!


----------



## hvp05

ItalianScallion said:


> When the eyewitness is God, you have no argument against Him. You lose...


:circularlogic:





UNA said:


> And you're saying you have firm backing for God?  Like what?  Physical evidence?  Mathematics??


WORMS, UNA... he has worms!







Errr, *words*.  Sorry.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				hvp05 said:
			
		

> ItalianScallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the eyewitness is God, you have no argument against Him. You lose...
> 
> 
> 
> :circularlogic:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're saying you have firm backing for God?  Like what?  Physical evidence?  Mathematics??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WORMS, UNA... he has worms!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Errr, *words*.  Sorry.
Click to expand...


Hahahaha!! That made be actually LOL


----------



## tiger78

UNA said:


> What don't I have form backing for again?  And what do you HAVE firm backing for again??
> 
> 
> 
> I was waiting for a question other than "sum up your whole belief system into a forum post...
> 
> _What's your god's name?_  My god doesn't have a name, didn't know it needed one...
> 
> _Describe him._  My god is also all knowing but is 100% hands-off.  Both male and female.  Within all things, you, me, my cats, that tree, rocks, water, air....everything.
> 
> _What are your basic precepts?_  Harm none.  Figure that pretty much sums it up don't you think?
> 
> _What source of truth do you have?_  I don't have a source of truth, don't need a book to tell me what I feel.  It's faith (you know, that thing you think you've replaced with you Bible "facts"?)  I have no proof, that's why I don't go around telling people I'm right, they're wrong and that I'm here to save them!  I have no more nor no less proof than anyone else...just an idea.




I am curious, why do you believe in this "god"?   you say that you believe in a hands off god. That to me sounds like your god is detached from you and uncaring towards you but then you say your god is in all things, doesn't sound hands off.  Confusing.....  So what is the relationship with this god?  Do you pray? Do you believe in a life after this one?


----------



## UNA

tiger78 said:


> I am curious, why do you believe in this "god"?



Because no one else's god works for me...also because I absolutely refuse to put a religious label on myself...there was (and still is but with less 'followers' now) a philosophy called Deism, I've taken this and added Naturalistic/pagan philosophies.



tiger78 said:


> you say that you believe in a hands off god. That to me sounds like your god is detached from you and uncaring towards you but then you say your god is in all things, doesn't sound hands off.  Confusing.....



Because I don't believe god interferes i.e. communication, miracles, intervention, messiahs........but all things are with the spirit



tiger78 said:


> So what is the relationship with this god?  Do you pray?



I suppose the 'relationship' is whatever one needs it to be.  If someone feels better about things by 'praying'/talking to god then that works.  I don't believe god answers prayers in this life, god won't send you strength, it's the FAITH in god that lends to one's strength.



tiger78 said:


> Do you believe in a life after this one?



I believe there is a place we all go to sort of 'deal' with our lives...ask forgiveness from those we hurt, forgive those who hurt us.  You can't have eternal life if you have a heavy soul, so this is the time you lighten your heart.  I don't believe in hell or eternal punishment.  I suppose some people may never 'come to terms' or realize they should ask forgiveness and would spend eternity this place, pondering   The Wiccans call it the Summerland, I suppose Catholics might call it a happier purgatory 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

My beliefs are mine, I suppose there are people who might agree, but there may not be...so there is no book, no 'rules', no requirements but to harm none.  Everyone should believe what they want, I don't believe anyone will be punished for it!

I know I kind of pick and choose what to believe, and I know I might not have it right.  I don't know if you've read the whole thread but I do not judge anyone's beliefs, no one is wrong and no one knows who it right.  The only things in this world we know to be true are the facts, the science.  Faith is unique and individual, and is not muddied with facts.  Just like facts aren't muddied with faith.


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

See IS?  Questions...answers...easy!


----------



## tiger78

UNA said:


> Because no one else's god works for me...also because I absolutely refuse to put a religious label on myself...there was (and still is but with less 'followers' now) a philosophy called Deism, I've taken this and added Naturalistic/pagan philosophies.
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't believe god interferes i.e. communication, miracles, intervention, messiahs........but all things are with the spirit
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the 'relationship' is whatever one needs it to be.  If someone feels better about things by 'praying'/talking to god then that works.  I don't believe god answers prayers in this life, god won't send you strength, it's the FAITH in god that lends to one's strength.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there is a place we all go to sort of 'deal' with our lives...ask forgiveness from those we hurt, forgive those who hurt us.  You can't have eternal life if you have a heavy soul, so this is the time you lighten your heart.  I don't believe in hell or eternal punishment.  I suppose some people may never 'come to terms' or realize they should ask forgiveness and would spend eternity this place, pondering   The Wiccans call it the Summerland, I suppose Catholics might call it a happier purgatory
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 
> My beliefs are mine, I suppose there are people who might agree, but there may not be...so there is no book, no 'rules', no requirements but to harm none.  Everyone should believe what they want, I don't believe anyone will be punished for it!
> 
> I know I kind of pick and choose what to believe, and I know I might not have it right.  I don't know if you've read the whole thread but I do not judge anyone's beliefs, no one is wrong and no one knows who it right.  The only things in this world we know to be true are the facts, the science.  Faith is unique and individual, and is not muddied with facts.  Just like facts aren't muddied with faith.
> 
> 
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 
> See IS?  Questions...answers...easy!



thanks for the answers, but still confused.  Why even believe a god exists?  It sounds like the one you believe in really serves no purpose.  Does not answer prayers, does not give strength, does not reward the just or punish the unjust.


----------



## UNA

tiger78 said:


> thanks for the answers, but still confused.  Why even believe a god exists?  It sounds like the one you believe in really serves no purpose.  Does not answer prayers, does not give strength, does not reward the just or punish the unjust.



Why wouldn't I believe?  There is a purpose, I figure god is why we can't figure out the singularity, IDK (either way, that's all god did WRT to 'creation') I suppose god set all the rules in the first place...someone/thing had to.  And how do you think the afterlife (Summerland, eternal life) works?  You can't lighten your heart on your own, that's where god helps. 

There's reward and punishment...those who cannot accept responsibility, ask forgiveness, give forgiveness...don't get to have eternal life, they would become without god...the ultimate 'hell'


----------



## tiger78

UNA said:


> Why wouldn't I believe?  There is a purpose, I figure god is why we can't figure out the singularity, IDK (either way, that's all god did WRT to 'creation') I suppose god set all the rules in the first place...someone/thing had to.  And how do you think the afterlife (Summerland, eternal life) works?  You can't lighten your heart on your own, that's where god helps.
> 
> There's reward and punishment...those who cannot accept responsibility, ask forgiveness, give forgiveness...don't get to have eternal life, they would become without god...the ultimate 'hell'



Interesting, but sounds like a lot of uncertainty and some contradiction.  Earlier you said there were no rules, now you say god set all the rules in place.  You said no one gets punished earlier but now you say they do by being without god.   

How do I think the afterlife works, you ask....God will judge the just and the unjust.  there is no halfway house to get things right before standing before the Almighty.  That is what this life is for, to get ready for the eternal one.  As for Hell, I believe it is an eternal separation from God so on that point we do agree.


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> That would depend on what he had to say.


I fully agree! So I can safely assume that, if someone appeared to you and said & did what Jesus did, you wouldn't believe Him? 


			
				hvp05 said:
			
		

> You are working on the loaded assumption that there are only two possibilities:  either _your_ god exists or there is nothing.  I do not need to tell you there is an entire spectrum of things in between.  We could *both* be wrong.  How would feel about that?  Wouldn't it be a biatch if we ended up being neighbors in hell?


  No; actually I'm hoping we ARE neighbors. You'd have to make it to Heaven though, because my fate is sealed forever...


UNA said:


> So what don't I have firm backing for again?  And you're saying you have firm backing for God?  Like what?  Physical evidence?  Mathematics??


All of the above. It's in The Bible...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> So.....your god can only save you because he has a name?  Hmmm...didn't think that's how it worked...


Read it for yourself:

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other *name* under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

...for, Everyone who calls on the *name of the Lord* will be saved.

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place 
   and gave him *the name that is above every name*, 
that at the *name of Jesus every knee should bow*, 
   in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, 
   to the glory of God the Father".


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> "emotionally bankrupt & empty"???  wow!  I can honestly say no one has ever accused me of that before!  Mind explaining your attacks here?


They're not personal attacks (like yours were). I'm speaking of your beliefs. 
There's only one God, that's all I'm saying. Your beliefs are empty but you don't realize it.


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> And I SAID I don't have proof for my god, no more nor less than you do!  What I DO have proof for is the science.  Again, *I* know the difference between facts and faith.


I have plenty of proof but no need to re-hash this again.


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Well then I guess I'll run off to church right now and start lying to myself, God and my fellow parishioners...really?  Is this what you're saying I do?  I'm not going to magically believe something just because a forum-ite told me I was going to burn eternally!


Suit yourself...but I'm saying that, if you give God a chance, He'll show Himself to you but it won't be on your terms. He's called GOD for a reason and that reason is He tells us what to do because He made us.


UNA said:


> Because no one else's god works for me...also because I absolutely refuse to put a religious label on myself...there was (and still is but with less 'followers' now) a philosophy called Deism, I've taken this and added Naturalistic/pagan philosophies.


God said this about you: 
"...my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge".


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> Because I don't believe god interferes i.e. communication, miracles, intervention, messiahs........but all things are with the spirit


Which spirit? There are plenty of evil spirits floating around out there but there's only one correct Spirit and you won't believe in Him.


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> My beliefs are mine, I suppose there are people who might agree, but there may not be...so there is no book, no 'rules', no requirements but to harm none.  Everyone should believe what they want, I don't believe anyone will be punished for it!


  God says otherwise...


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> I know I kind of pick and choose what to believe, and I know I might not have it right.  I don't know if you've read the whole thread but I do not judge anyone's beliefs, no one is wrong and no one knows who it right.  The only things in this world we know to be true are the facts, the science.  Faith is unique and individual, and is not muddied with facts.  Just like facts aren't muddied with faith. See IS?  Questions...answers...easy!


Truth is not a smorgasbord. There's only one truth and everything else is wrong. You've bought into the liberal New Age mindset which leads to destruction. See UNA.....answers.....easy!


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				tiger78 said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't I believe?  There is a purpose, I figure god is why we can't figure out the singularity, IDK (either way, that's all god did WRT to 'creation') I suppose god set all the rules in the first place...someone/thing had to.  And how do you think the afterlife (Summerland, eternal life) works?  You can't lighten your heart on your own, that's where god helps.
> 
> There's reward and punishment...those who cannot accept responsibility, ask forgiveness, give forgiveness...don't get to have eternal life, they would become without god...the ultimate 'hell'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, but sounds like a lot of uncertainty and some contradiction.  Earlier you said there were no rules, now you say god set all the rules in place.  You said no one gets punished earlier but now you say they do by being without god.
> 
> How do I think the afterlife works, you ask....God will judge the just and the unjust.  there is no halfway house to get things right before standing before the Almighty.  That is what this life is for, to get ready for the eternal one.  As for Hell, I believe it is an eternal separation from God so on that point we do agree.
Click to expand...


Rules for the universe. And by 'no one gets punished' I meant no Hell. Poor choice of words on my part. I don't usually have to spell out my beliefs and since I dint have a handy dandy book to copy from I actually have to put thought into it. Not that you don't think about your beliefs, just that some don't


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> All of the above. It's in The Bible...



I mean proof of the miracles.



ItalianScallion said:


> Read it for yourself:
> 
> "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other *name* under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
> 
> ...for, Everyone who calls on the *name of the Lord* will be saved.
> 
> Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
> and gave him *the name that is above every name*,
> that at the *name of Jesus every knee should bow*,
> in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
> and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
> to the glory of God the Father".



Just sounded like that's what you were saying...IDK...again...from the Bible I assume?  Still your belief, not fact



ItalianScallion said:


> They're not personal attacks (like yours were). I'm speaking of your beliefs.
> There's only one God, that's all I'm saying. Your beliefs are empty but you don't realize it.



1) never personally attacked you, if you interpreted that then I'm sorry.
2) attack on my beliefs (i.e. saying they're wrong/empty)=attack on me

...you really seem to be trying hard here to offend me and what I believe in.  All I've ever done here is try to explain that there may be more that one truth...never said you were wrong/empty.  Isn't there something about throwing stones in the Bible too???



ItalianScallion said:


> I have plenty of proof but no need to re-hash this again.



Oh why not?  Though we got nowhere before...since you refuse to see the difference between facts and faith...I guess I'll just never understand that one........



ItalianScallion said:


> Suit yourself...but I'm saying that, if you give God a chance, He'll show Himself to you but it won't be on your terms. He's called GOD for a reason and that reason is He tells us what to do because He made us.



well I don't like being told what to do by some'thing' that is so narrow and unwaivering.



ItalianScallion said:


> God said this about you:
> "...my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge".



K...knowledge of what exactly, God?  Figures....



ItalianScallion said:


> Which spirit? There are plenty of evil spirits floating around out there but there's only one correct Spirit and you won't believe in Him.



Well now it sounds like you think you've answered the question for me... 



ItalianScallion said:


> God says otherwise...



Of course He does...............



ItalianScallion said:


> Truth is not a smorgasbord. There's only one truth and everything else is wrong. You've bought into the liberal New Age mindset which leads to destruction. See UNA.....answers.....easy!



Why not?  Because a book says so..."word of god" huh?  Guess I'll just be destroyed then...ugh, you're getting frustrating.  You are refusing to see the world for what it is!  Why would God expect such narrow obedience when he himself expects OUR forgiveness?


----------



## hvp05

ItalianScallion said:


> So I can safely assume that, if someone appeared to you and said & did what Jesus did, you wouldn't believe Him?


Would*n't*?  You are reading stuff into what I said just as 2A did.    How do you know what I would believe and what I wouldn't?  It's kind of freaky that you think you know me better than I do.




> You'd have to make it to Heaven though, because my fate is sealed forever...


  Happy for you!




> I'm saying that, if you give God a chance, He'll show Himself to you but it won't be on your terms.


That is clearly easier - MUCH easier - said than done.  If that is true, the vast majority of believers have not _truly_ believed, despite their saying they have.  





UNA said:


> Rules for the universe. And by 'no one gets punished' I meant no Hell. Poor choice of words on my part.


You were not confusing to me.  I picked up on what you were relaying quite well.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				hvp05 said:
			
		

> You were not confusing to me.  I picked up on what you were relaying quite well.



Oh good  I was worried I'd mis-typed something


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> Would*n't*?  You are reading stuff into what I said just as 2A did.    How do you know what I would believe and what I wouldn't?  It's kind of freaky that you think you know me better than I do.


Yes; I was watching you at RR that day and you didn't even know it...

Dude; I'm simply asking you a question. Didn't you see the "?" at the end? Would you follow a guy like Jesus if he was here today or not? (You know a bit about what He stands for already). Could you handle that responsibility? I'm not reading anything into anything. Tell me so I'll know. 


			
				hvp05 said:
			
		

> That is clearly easier - MUCH easier - said than done.  If that is true, the vast majority of believers have not _truly_ believed, despite their saying they have.


Not at all. If it's hard, it's because you're making it hard. It's the simplest thing to do with regards to the actual process. It will take some courage to stand up to the crap that will come your way but it WILL be worth it in the end. 

All you need to do is tell Him that you want to honestly follow Him. He'll know if you're kidding or not. If you're sincere, you'll be amazed at how things look from His point of view. Heck, you & I might agree on a LOT more things.  Scary isn't it? nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!


----------



## Bird Dog

ItalianScallion said:


> Would you follow a guy like Jesus if he was here today or not? :



YouTube - Would Jesus Wear a Rolex by Ray Stevens


----------



## ItalianScallion

Bird Dog said:


> YouTube - Would Jesus Wear a Rolex by Ray Stevens


That is soo true! Ray Stevens did a good job exposing the "Faith Movement".


----------



## hvp05

ItalianScallion said:


> I was watching you at RR that day and you didn't even know it...


  Funny though, since I have been there only once and I don't think it was your designated day.  




> Would you follow a guy like Jesus if he was here today or not? (You know a bit about what He stands for already). Could you handle that responsibility?


As I said previously, it would depend on what he had to say and did.

I find it interesting that 2A always says we are to have the "faith of a child".  Unfortunately, children believe a lot of things that are not real; they will watch a magician and believe that he is actually making objects appear from nowhere or what have you.  When I mentioned parting the Chesapeake, he called me a 'doubting Thomas' for being inclined to first approach it skeptically.  Yet how are we supposed to separate the charlatans from the genuine article if we do not ask questions?

If a man claiming to be the Messiah was walking around today, I would be *required*, for the sake of my soul, to view that man skeptically and ask questions, to learn his motives.  If he could somehow convince me that he were the Messiah, surely I would believe him.  Would I have any other choice?




> If it's hard, it's because you're making it hard. It's the simplest thing to do with regards to the actual process. It will take some courage to stand up to the crap that will come your way but it WILL be worth it in the end.


That's what they all say... and look where we are today.    Everyone believes they have discovered "the way".


----------



## Bird Dog

ItalianScallion said:


> Yes; I was watching you at RR that day and you didn't even know it...
> Would you follow a guy like Jesus if he was here today or not?
> !



Not everyone. I heard he showed up at RR and started to do some healing and as one man starting to run outside , Jesus stopped him and asked him why he was leaving. 
The man said, he was afraid Jesus was going to touch him and didn't want him to since he was out on disability.


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> Funny though, since I have been there only once and I don't think it was your designated day.


I hope you didn't sit in MY seat... 


			
				hvp05 said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that 2A always says we are to have the "faith of a child".  Unfortunately, children believe a lot of things that are not real; they will watch a magician and believe that he is actually making objects appear from nowhere or what have you.  When I mentioned parting the Chesapeake, he called me a 'doubting Thomas' for being inclined to first approach it skeptically.  Yet how are we supposed to separate the charlatans from the genuine article if we do not ask questions?


You're right but, as I said before, Jesus will not be used as a "side show". This is why some denominations are giving Christianity a bad name by their "theatrics" in their churches. 

That childlike faith simply means to trust God completely, even in things that we don't understand. A small child trusts completely & without fear. And God DID say to test everything, so you wouldn't be wrong to test everything. The problem is that people use their feelings and incorrect sources to test things with. There is a right & a wrong way to interpret the Bible. I know that's been said a zillion times here but it will always be true. You need a "standard for truth" to correctly test those things.


			
				hvp05 said:
			
		

> If a man claiming to be the Messiah was walking around today, I would be *required*, for the sake of my soul, to view that man skeptically and ask questions, to learn his motives.  If he could somehow convince me that he were the Messiah, surely I would believe him.  Would I have any other choice?


Good to know, but many that saw Jesus didn't believe Him, that's why I asked if you are ready for that big responsibility...


			
				hvp05 said:
			
		

> That's what they all say... and look where we are today.    Everyone believes they have discovered "the way".


But it's no different than the rest of the world. Why is it that there are some mechanics, doctors, hvac techs, restaurants, ETC. ETC., that do their jobs wrong while others do theirs right? The procedures are the same, it's the people who mess up the practices. Just like the Bible, when they read it properly, we're all on the same page........at least when we have to be.


Bird Dog said:


> Not everyone. I heard he showed up at RR and started to do some healing and as one man starting to run outside , Jesus stopped him and asked him why he was leaving.
> The man said, he was afraid Jesus was going to touch him and didn't want him to since he was out on disability.


That's how you know for sure He was in So Md...


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> Doubt does equal no faith but it doesn't equal being right!



Think about it. If I thought there was any possibility that the Bible is wrong, then I would not have faith. So faith does equate to the Bible being correct.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Think about it. If I thought there was any possibility that the Bible is wrong, then I would not have faith. So faith does equate to the Bible being correct.



but only to you...


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> but only to you...



And billions of others.

We've had this discussion before.  All humans, regardless of what you believe, rely on certain levels of faith in something or someone that they are right.  We've been through the discussion about blackholes, or evolution, or other phenomena that we can't actually prove with our senses.  Yet we believe them because very noteworthy and trustworthy people tell these things are there.  Your faith is good enough.  Well, given all the facts we do know, and all the holes God left in His explanation of His creation and history, my faith in God is good enough for me.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				PsyOps said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but only to you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And billions of others.
> 
> We've had this discussion before.  All humans, regardless of what you believe, rely on certain levels of faith in something or someone that they are right.  We've been through the discussion about blackholes, or evolution, or other phenomena that we can't actually prove with our senses.  Yet we believe them because very noteworthy and trustworthy people tell these things are there.  Your faith is good enough.  Well, given all the facts we do know, and all the holes God left in His explanation of His creation and history, my faith in God is good enough for me.
Click to expand...


Agree! I meant that his specific beliefs - and more specifically his personal relationship with God - is relatively unique to him.

He basically said that because he's got faith he's right...I don't really get how that works, or did I miss something? 

You often state this things much better than others. But WRT to evolution and black holes; that discussion we'd had before was about facts versus faith. So; one should compare comparable things. My point was to compare facts with faith, not scientific theories with faith.


----------



## hvp05

2ndAmendment said:


> If I thought there was any possibility that the Bible is wrong, then I would not have faith. So faith does equate to the Bible being correct.


Um, no.  Your faith equates to _you believing_ the Bible is correct.

As another counter, consider all the other beliefs out there.  You are suggesting that *everyone* who disagrees with your views is either (a) not truly faithful, or (b) knowingly lying to themselves.

Unless you are some judge of reality and objectivity beyond the rest of us, you cannot verify anything more than most believers can.


----------



## PsyOps

hvp05 said:


> Um, no.  Your faith equates to _you believing_ the Bible is correct.
> 
> As another counter, consider all the other beliefs out there.  You are suggesting that *everyone* who disagrees with your views is either (a) not truly faithful, or (b) knowingly lying to themselves.
> 
> Unless you are some judge of reality and objectivity beyond the rest of us, you cannot verify anything more than most believers can.



Okay... Exercise in futility... Prove 2nd is wrong.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

hvp05 said:


> Um, no.  Your faith equates to _you believing_ the Bible is correct.
> 
> As another counter, consider all the other beliefs out there.  You are suggesting that *everyone* who disagrees with your views is either (a) not truly faithful, or (b) knowingly lying to themselves.
> 
> Unless you are some judge of reality and objectivity beyond the rest of us, you cannot verify anything more than most believers can.





UNA said:


> but only to you...


My faith dictates that the Bible must be right. Otherwise there is doubt and there is not faith. It is that simple. There is or is not faith. It is binary. You cannot sort of have faith. And the faith of a little child is the kind of faith that is required. Faith that believes God no matter what.


PsyOps said:


> Okay... Exercise in futility... Prove 2nd is wrong.


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> You often state this things much better than others. But WRT to evolution and black holes; that discussion we'd had before was about facts versus faith. So; one should compare comparable things. My point was to compare facts with faith, not scientific theories with faith.



I appreciate that.

Perhaps I missed the facts vs. faith part since I recall trying to point out that your trust in the facts ends up being nothing more than faith in those who give you those ‘facts’; since those facts can’t be concretely proven.  It’s about proving what you believe is right; which, given the limited amount of ‘facts’, we can’t.


----------



## hvp05

PsyOps said:


> Okay... Exercise in futility... Prove 2nd is wrong.


On which part?  I cannot prove what the Bible says is wrong.  I can, however, disprove his claim that his faith in the Bible means the Bible is right.




2ndAmendment said:


>


So then you do agree that we cannot prove much of anything one way or the other.


----------



## PsyOps

hvp05 said:


> On which part?  I cannot prove what the Bible says is wrong.  I can, however, disprove his claim that his faith in the Bible means the Bible is right.



Now that's a contradiction in terms if I ever saw it.  You can't prove the bible is wrong yet can disprove his faith makes the bible right?  Wouldn't you first have to prove the bible is wrong in order to prove the other?  I mean if you conclude the bible is right doesn't that make 2nd right?


----------



## hvp05

PsyOps said:


> Wouldn't you first have to prove the bible is wrong in order to prove the other?  I mean if you conclude the bible is right doesn't that make 2nd right?


Wait.  What?  

What the Bible says and what he believes it says are not _necessarily_ the same thing.  The Bible could be correct and 2a could be wrong, or they could both be wrong; the Bible could not be wrong but 2a correct.

Go back to what I said in #583:  proof that his faith is not a valid form of 'confirmation' is in the fact that many other beliefs exist.  Unless he is claiming all those other people do not have a _true_ faith or are knowingly lying to themselves - but then he would need to confirm that assertion.


----------



## PsyOps

hvp05 said:


> Wait.  What?
> 
> What the Bible says and what he believes it says are not _necessarily_ the same thing.  The Bible could be correct and 2a could be wrong, or they could both be wrong; the Bible could not be wrong but 2a correct.



Operative words: “could be”.  They both COULD BE right.  Again, prove they are not.



hvp05 said:


> Go back to what I said in #583: proof that his faith is not a valid form of 'confirmation' is in the fact that many other beliefs exist. Unless he is claiming all those other people do not have a true faith or are knowingly lying to themselves - but then he would need to confirm that assertion.



You’ve already stated you can’t prove the bible isn’t true.  I'm operating on that premise.  This allows the assumption that the bible IS true, therefore 2nd is right in his faith and his faith does confirm that truth.


----------



## hvp05

PsyOps said:


> Operative words: “could be”.  They both COULD BE right.  Again, prove they are not.


I cannot - nor was I attempting to - prove that BOTH are wrong.




> You’ve already stated you can’t prove the bible isn’t true.  I'm operating on that premise.  This allows the assumption that the bible IS true, therefore 2nd is right in his faith and his faith does confirm that truth.


We are viewing this slightly differently; you view it from the Bible's side but I am viewing it from the human interpretation side.

His contention is that his faith in of itself confirms the Bible's correctness.  My counter is that his faith is no more valid than anyone else's.  Sure, he COULD be right, but using his faith as a proof is feeble to say the least.

Consider, if his faith is evidence of the "One Truth", what are the rest of us waiting for?  We should be converting to his beliefs in mass numbers.


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> Okay... Exercise in futility... Prove 2nd is wrong.



The 'burden' of proof is on the believers.


----------



## PsyOps

UNA said:


> The 'burden' of proof is on the believers.



Not from my perspective.


----------



## PsyOps

hvp05 said:


> I cannot - nor was I attempting to - prove that BOTH are wrong.
> 
> 
> We are viewing this slightly differently; you view it from the Bible's side but I am viewing it from the human interpretation side.
> 
> His contention is that his faith in of itself confirms the Bible's correctness.  My counter is that his faith is no more valid than anyone else's.  Sure, he COULD be right, but using his faith as a proof is feeble to say the least.
> 
> Consider, if his faith is evidence of the "One Truth", what are the rest of us waiting for?  We should be converting to his beliefs in mass numbers.



Certainly everything is from an individual perspective.  I wasn't challenging your contention that his faith defines the truth; I was trying to figure out how you can conclude that if there is a possibility that the bible is true, and 2nd's faith confirms that it's true, then you can't disprove his faith proves it's true.  It seems you're trying to have it both ways.

But I'd like to put in my own way of thinking... There is plenty of evidence out there that the bible is true, but typically not compelling enough on its own.  Once I had faith that it's true, that was the convincing evidence for me.  And faith, for those who believe, is a very real thing and not just some fairy tale (as others like to put it).


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> My faith dictates that the Bible must be right. Otherwise there is doubt and there is not faith.



So is EVERY part of the Bible correct? (NT)

Plenty of people have this "there is only one truth" type of faith.  They all think they're right and anyone who disagrees is dead wrong.  Many people who disagree with you think they know the one truth and their god and the miracles are fact.  But [I say again...] there is no proof.  Again...again...again :lo: I'm not saying you're wrong because I don't know, but that's exactly the point, we DON'T know.  It's faith!  If the Bible were all proven fact there would be no need for faith!  It wouldn't be religion...it would be science!


----------



## Zguy28

UNA said:


> The 'burden' of proof is on the believers.


The burden of proof is on whoever makes a claim. Period.

If I say "there is a God" I only need one piece of evidence to know it is true (although you may not recognize the evidence; the bible actually talks about that).

If another says "there is no god" they would need to travel to, and investigate every single point in space to know for certain that there is no god.

Can the atheist do that? If they can, they wouldn't be an atheist because then they would be God themselves. If they can't they make a truth claim without proof to back it up.


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> I appreciate that.
> 
> Perhaps I missed the facts vs. faith part since I recall trying to point out that your trust in the facts ends up being nothing more than faith in those who give you those ‘facts’; since those facts can’t be concretely proven.  It’s about proving what you believe is right; which, given the limited amount of ‘facts’, we can’t.





You're right, we have limited facts WRT a lot of things and can therefore, not prove them right.  But we DO have a lot of facts about a lot of things, those are the'facts' that I compare to faith to show the difference.  I can walk outside right now and say "there is another house next to mine" but I can't say "Look!  There's God right there!"


----------



## UNA

PsyOps said:


> Not from my perspective.



agree to disagree I suppose...but take the Great Flood.  All the land was covered by water but there isn't enough water on the Earth cover all the land.  So did God create extra water and now it's gone?

Or

The Nativity.  I was taught that Mary and Joseph were traveling back to their home town to participate in a Roman census.  A Roman census didn't care where you were from rather where you currently lived.  So at the very least, that's not why they were traveling.


----------



## UNA

Zguy28 said:


> The burden of proof is on whoever makes a claim. Period.
> 
> If I say "there is a God" I only need one piece of evidence to know it is true (although you may not recognize the evidence; the bible actually talks about that).
> 
> If another says "there is no god" they would need to travel to, and investigate every single point in space to know for certain that there is no god.
> 
> Can the atheist do that? If they can, they wouldn't be an atheist because then they would be God themselves. If they can't they make a truth claim without proof to back it up.



Wooops!  I never claimed there was no God (just an FYI) 

You (and Christians in general) are the one making the claim here.  All I'm saying is that it is not a fact!  You cannot use the Bible as proof of a Christian God as it is the validity of the Bible itself that I'm questioning here.


----------



## Zguy28

UNA said:


> agree to disagree I suppose...but take the Great Flood.  All the land was covered by water but there isn't enough water on the Earth cover all the land.  So did God create extra water and now it's gone?


"on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights." Genesis 7:11-12


> Or
> 
> The Nativity.  I was taught that Mary and Joseph were traveling back to their home town to participate in a Roman census.  A Roman census didn't care where you were from rather where you currently lived.  So at the very least, that's not why they were traveling.


Of course not. The real reason was that God's plan of redemption involved fulfillment of the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.


----------



## Zguy28

UNA said:


> Wooops!  I never claimed there was no God (just an FYI)


Never claimed you did. But you have to see also that from my point of view, if you deny the authenticity of the bible as the Word of God, then you deny the author also, and that that technically makes you an atheist. 



> You (and Christians in general) are the one making the claim here.  All I'm saying is that it is not a fact!


A truth claim in itself. Seems you are making claims too. 



> You cannot use the Bible as proof of a Christian God as it is the validity of the Bible itself that I'm questioning here.


Of course we can. Its up to you to recognize the truth or not.


----------



## hvp05

PsyOps said:


> I was trying to figure out how you can conclude that if there is a possibility that the bible is true, and 2nd's faith confirms that it's true, then you can't disprove his faith proves it's true.  It seems you're trying to have it both ways.


If his faith happens to hit on the One Truth, it's by luck more than anything.  After all, billions have searched for it, so it is reasonable to believe that a few will come close to uncovering what it actually is.  That said, from our human perspective, led by our human abilities, there is no way for anyone - besides 2A himself - to confirm anything he claims.




> And faith, for those who believe, is a very real thing and not just some fairy tale (as others like to put it).


Absolutely.  Which is why yours is as valid as 2A's and most others - except the real loonies - are on the same playing field.


----------



## UNA

Zguy28 said:


> "on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights." Genesis 7:11-12



So he added water and then removed it?  5 times more water than is on the earth now literally entered the earth's atmosphere and rained onto the land, covering it all?  Is there then geological evidence that the whole earth was covered in water all at once appx 4600 years ago (at least that's one time line I've heard WRT the Bible)?  What about archeological evidence that all but a few of all the earth's living beings were killed at about the same time.



> Of course not. The real reason was that God's plan of redemption involved fulfillment of the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.



So they just traveled because the prophecy said Jesus had to be born there?  What about:



> "1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.
> 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them." Luke 2



Relative side note, just so I know, do you take the Bible literally?


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> Consider, if his faith is evidence of the "One Truth", what are the rest of us waiting for?  We should be converting to his beliefs in mass numbers.


So, what are you waiting for? 


UNA said:


> The 'burden' of proof is on the UNA-believers.


:fixed:


UNA said:


> So is EVERY part of the Bible correct? (NT)
> Plenty of people have this "there is only one truth" type of faith.  They all think they're right and anyone who disagrees is dead wrong.  Many people who disagree with you think they know the one truth and their god and the miracles are fact. But [I say again...] there is no proof.


The burden of proof is on us...God said it, it was written down, He left us a bunch of evidence and now it's up to us to believe it...or not. It doesn't matter what people think. The truth doesn't change. I don't think we should pay these high gas prices; did they change because of what I believe? Darn!! 


UNA said:


> agree to disagree I suppose...but take the Great Flood.  All the land was covered by water but there isn't enough water on the Earth cover all the land.  So did God create extra water and now it's gone?


If you've read the story in the Bible, it says that:

11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. 

The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than 20 feet. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark".  (Genesis 7)

God made lots of extra water and then it evaporated. Rain was falling from the sky in droves AND was coming up from the springs of water underground. It covered the earth until it was 20' over the highest mountain, then it began to recede.


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> So he added water and then removed it?  5 times more water than is on the earth now literally entered the earth's atmosphere and rained onto the land, covering it all?  Is there then geological evidence that the whole earth was covered in water all at once appx 4600 years ago (at least that's one time line I've heard WRT the Bible)?  What about archeological evidence that all but a few of all the earth's living beings were killed at about the same time.


Yes there is evidence. Look it up dear... They even found the Ark on Mount Arrarat in Turkey AND just look at what the Bible said long before they found the Ark:

3 "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month *the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat...*" (Genesis 8)

How's that for evidence, proof or anything else you'd like to call it?


----------



## 2lazy2P

ItalianScallion said:


> Yes there is evidence. Look it up dear... They even found the Ark on Mount Arrarat in Turkey AND just look at what the Bible said long before they found the Ark:
> 
> 3 "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month *the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat...*" (Genesis 8)
> 
> How's that for evidence, proof or anything else you'd like to call it?


 

I looked it up....and found....."*Despite many rumours, evidence, sightings and expeditions, no scientific evidence of the ark has been found"*

Searches for Noah's Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


:shrug:


----------



## Zguy28

UNA said:


> So he added water and then removed it?  5 times more water than is on the earth now literally entered the earth's atmosphere and rained onto the land, covering it all?  Is there then geological evidence that the whole earth was covered in water all at once appx 4600 years ago (at least that's one time line I've heard WRT the Bible)?  What about archeological evidence that all but a few of all the earth's living beings were killed at about the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> So they just traveled because the prophecy said Jesus had to be born there?  What about:


Everything works to further God's sovereign plan of redemption. For example: the high priest Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate were part of God's plan of redemption.




> Relative side note, just so I know, do you take the Bible literally?


I do take it literally in the sense that it is God inspired and without error in the original manuscripts.

I use the grammatical-historical method of interpretation with an emphasis on Christology and the context for interpretation.
Here is a good description of what I try to follow: Reformation Theology: The Reformersâ€™ Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered


----------



## hvp05

ItalianScallion said:


> So, what are you waiting for?


You must not have been reading my posts.  




> God made lots of extra water and then it *evaporated*. Rain was falling from the sky in droves AND was coming up from the springs of water underground. It covered the earth until it was *20' over the highest mountain*, then it began to recede.


I'll take the second bolded part first.  Twenty feet over the highest mountain would be a minimum of an _additional 25,000 feet_ of water over the entire planet.  Then, to say it evaporated implies that it returned to the sky - or went back underground, but there is not nearly enough water in either place to explain such a surge.  God must have made it completely disappear, which I know is perfectly acceptable if you rely totally on your faith.





ItalianScallion said:


> Yes there is evidence. Look it up dear... They even found the Ark on Mount Arrarat in Turkey


There is what some have claimed to be the Ark.  Could it not be another boat?  Or wood from some other different structure?  Or how about this, from WND:  Latest Noah's Ark 'just wood planted on Ararat'?

Again, I know you won't care about any alternative facts or ideas... as long as you have your faith.


----------



## Zguy28

hvp05 said:


> I'll take the second bolded part first.  Twenty feet over the highest mountain would be a minimum of an _additional 25,000 feet_ of water over the entire planet.  Then, to say it evaporated implies that it returned to the sky - or went back underground, but there is not nearly enough water in either place to explain such a surge.  God must have made it completely disappear, which I know is perfectly acceptable if you rely totally on your faith.


There is debate in Christian circles over whether the words translated "the world" means global (planetary) or a more regional sense.

To take a New Testament example, in Romans Paul says explicitly that the Gospel had been preached throughout the world. We know of course that it had not left the Roman Empire at that time, but nonetheless, Paul's words convey the point and are true according to their usage. The same can be argued about Noah's flood.

In Genesis 8 alone, it says that Noah could see the tops of the mountains above the water as it receded, but it still says the surface of the earth was covered. Aren't mountains on the surface of the earth? Or am I being too literal?

_5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

 6 After forty days Noah opened a window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. 12 He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.

 13 By the first day of the first month of Noah’s six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. 14 By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry. _

Was the whole earth "completely dry"? According to those who might say it was a global flood, this verse would seem to imply their were no oceans and seas and lakes left. And yes, its a silly notion, but it illustrates the dangers of taking things too far, too beyond their context.


----------



## 2lazy2P

Zguy28 said:


> Or am I being too literal?


 
So do you believe the Bible should be taken literally or figuratively?


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				ItalianScallion said:
			
		

> hvp05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider, if his faith is evidence of the "One Truth", what are the rest of us waiting for?  We should be converting to his beliefs in mass numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what are you waiting for?
> 
> 
> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'burden' of proof is on the UNA-believers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :fixed:
> 
> 
> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is EVERY part of the Bible correct? (NT)
> Plenty of people have this "there is only one truth" type of faith.  They all think they're right and anyone who disagrees is dead wrong.  Many people who disagree with you think they know the one truth and their god and the miracles are fact. But [I say again...] there is no proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The burden of proof is on us...God said it, it was written down, He left us a bunch of evidence and now it's up to us to believe it...or not. It doesn't matter what people think. The truth doesn't change. I don't think we should pay these high gas prices; did they change because of what I believe? Darn!!
> 
> 
> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> agree to disagree I suppose...but take the Great Flood.  All the land was covered by water but there isn't enough water on the Earth cover all the land.  So did God create extra water and now it's gone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you've read the story in the Bible, it says that:
> 
> 11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
> 
> The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than 20 feet. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark".  (Genesis 7)
> 
> God made lots of extra water and then it evaporated. Rain was falling from the sky in droves AND was coming up from the springs of water underground. It covered the earth until it was 20' over the highest mountain, then it began to recede.
Click to expand...


Cute...fixed...real good response there...

And then you go on to say that burden of proof IS on you? And BTW, I don't mean to say you nor anyone reay has to prove anything. Certainly not to prove their faith! That's why it's faith, no need to prove anything! I mean WRT what people claim as facts. 

If that much moisture entered the earth's atmosphere that quickly it would likely crush our lungs. Doesn't sound like a good move on gods part. And I don't think you meant to say 'evaporate'; that would seem to imply that it's still in earths atmosphere and it obviously isn't


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				ItalianScallion said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> So he added water and then removed it?  5 times more water than is on the earth now literally entered the earth's atmosphere and rained onto the land, covering it all?  Is there then geological evidence that the whole earth was covered in water all at once appx 4600 years ago (at least that's one time line I've heard WRT the Bible)?  What about archeological evidence that all but a few of all the earth's living beings were killed at about the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is evidence. Look it up dear... They even found the Ark on Mount Arrarat in Turkey AND just look at what the Bible said long before they found the Ark:
> 
> 3 "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month *the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat...*" (Genesis 8)
> 
> How's that for evidence, proof or anything else you'd like to call it?
Click to expand...


Yeah, the Mt Ararat phenom. Isn't that the picture with the dark bits that look like an ark? And when people climbed up to find it there was nothing but rocks and it turned out we were matrixing it? And aren't the measurements of the 'ark' too small to be Noah's ark? Funny how people find proof when they want to then when everyone says 'nope, sorry' they ignore it 

Not exactly the 'proof' you were going for, sorry! To be honest, I remember when the Mt Ararat thing started and I really wanted it to be the ark, how awesome would that have been??!!!


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Zguy28 said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> So he added water and then removed it?  5 times more water than is on the earth now literally entered the earth's atmosphere and rained onto the land, covering it all?  Is there then geological evidence that the whole earth was covered in water all at once appx 4600 years ago (at least that's one time line I've heard WRT the Bible)?  What about archeological evidence that all but a few of all the earth's living beings were killed at about the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> So they just traveled because the prophecy said Jesus had to be born there?  What about:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything works to further God's sovereign plan of redemption. For example: the high priest Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate were part of God's plan of redemption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Relative side note, just so I know, do you take the Bible literally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do take it literally in the sense that it is God inspired and without error in the original manuscripts.
> 
> I use the grammatical-historical method of interpretation with an emphasis on Christology and the context for interpretation.
> Here is a good description of what I try to follow: Reformation Theology: The Reformersâ€™ Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered
Click to expand...


Thank you for being up front about how you view the bible, most helpful!

So has there been geological/archeological evidence of the earth being covered by 20ft of water all at once? I don't find any...again, this doesn't prove the bible wrong, just proves that there is no proof


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Zguy28 said:
			
		

> hvp05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take the second bolded part first.  Twenty feet over the highest mountain would be a minimum of an _additional 25,000 feet_ of water over the entire planet.  Then, to say it evaporated implies that it returned to the sky - or went back underground, but there is not nearly enough water in either place to explain such a surge.  God must have made it completely disappear, which I know is perfectly acceptable if you rely totally on your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate in Christian circles over whether the words translated "the world" means global (planetary) or a more regional sense.
> 
> To take a New Testament example, in Romans Paul says explicitly that the Gospel had been preached throughout the world. We know of course that it had not left the Roman Empire at that time, but nonetheless, Paul's words convey the point and are true according to their usage. The same can be argued about Noah's flood.
> 
> In Genesis 8 alone, it says that Noah could see the tops of the mountains above the water as it receded, but it still says the surface of the earth was covered. Aren't mountains on the surface of the earth? Or am I being too literal?
> 
> _5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
> 
> 6 After forty days Noah opened a window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. 12 He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.
> 
> 13 By the first day of the first month of Noah’s six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. 14 By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry. _
> 
> Was the whole earth "completely dry"? According to those who might say it was a global flood, this verse would seem to imply their were no oceans and seas and lakes left. And yes, its a silly notion, but it illustrates the dangers of taking things too far, too beyond their context.
Click to expand...


Great points! When reading ANY ancient text, which is what the bible is...word of god or not it's really old, you have to remember that the world is a lot bigger than it used to be. The whole world to Noah was probably (at most) a 100 mile radius around his home. He'd never been beyond that! A huge regional flood would have seemed like the whole world but was really just his region. 

So, bible not necessarily wrong, but definitely not literal...IMO


----------



## hvp05

Zguy28 said:


> There is debate in Christian circles over whether the words translated "the world" means global (planetary) or a more regional sense.





UNA said:


> ... you have to remember that the world is a lot bigger than it used to be. The whole world to Noah was probably (at most) a 100 mile radius around his home.


Exactly, which is why many believe the "Black Sea Flood Theory" could provide the answers necessary.  This theory is scientifically plausible and much more logical than the literal worldwide flood story, but unfortunately, people like 2A and Starman persist in asserting that the Bible must be taken as truth word for word or everything is invalid.


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> Great points! When reading ANY ancient text, which is what the bible is...word of god or not it's really old, you have to remember that the world is a lot bigger than it used to be. The whole world to Noah was probably (at most) a 100 mile radius around his home. He'd never been beyond that! A huge regional flood would have seemed like the whole world but was really just his region.
> 
> So, bible not necessarily wrong, but definitely not literal...IMO



Here's some info:



> Many Christians today think the Flood of Noah’s time was only a local flood, confined to somewhere around Mesopotamia. This idea comes not from Scripture, but from the notion of ‘billions of years’ of Earth history.
> But look at the problems this concept involves:
> 
>  If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.
> 
>  If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.
> 
>  If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.1
> 
>  If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.
> 
>  If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn’t rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2
> 
>  If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin.3 If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of ‘all’ men (Matthew 24:37–39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah’s day means a partial judgment to come.
> 
>  If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.
> 
> Belief in a world-wide Flood, as Scripture clearly indicates, has the backing of common sense, science and Christ Himself.
> 
> Noah’s Flood covered the whole earth






> In a recent article from the Washington Post, explorer Robert Ballard (discoverer of the Titanic) led a team to the Black Sea in search of evidence for Noah’s Flood. About 550 feet below the surface, they found evidence of a ‘sudden, catastrophic flood around 7,500 years ago—the possible source of the Old Testament story of Noah.’
> 
> They captured sonar images of a ‘gentle berm and a sandbar submerged undisturbed for thousands of years on the sea floor.’ Then using radiocarbon dating, they determined that the remains of the freshwater mollusks found on this submerged beach were 7,500 years old and that the saltwater species were only 6,900 years old.
> 
> Proof of Noah’s Flood at the Black Sea?


----------



## hvp05

Starman3000m said:


> Belief in a world-wide Flood, as Scripture clearly indicates, *has the backing of common sense, science* and Christ Himself.


  Actually, most, if not all, of those hold NO common sense.  It can make sense to figure that the area flooded was the only area Noah knew.  Perhaps the area flooded was bigger than it is now; perhaps he truly could not see other land masses when it happened.

If the part I put in bold above were true, most of the scientific community and lay persons would believe it.  The exact opposite is the reality.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Starman3000m said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great points! When reading ANY ancient text, which is what the bible is...word of god or not it's really old, you have to remember that the world is a lot bigger than it used to be. The whole world to Noah was probably (at most) a 100 mile radius around his home. He'd never been beyond that! A huge regional flood would have seemed like the whole world but was really just his region.
> 
> So, bible not necessarily wrong, but definitely not literal...IMO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some info:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many Christians today think the Flood of Noah's time was only a local flood, confined to somewhere around Mesopotamia. This idea comes not from Scripture, but from the notion of ‘billions of years' of Earth history.
> But look at the problems this concept involves:
> 
>  If the Flood was local, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.
> 
>  If the Flood was local, why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if these particular ones had died.
> 
>  If the Flood was local, why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only Mesopotamian animals were aboard, the Ark could have been much smaller.1
> 
>  If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range.
> 
>  If the Flood was local, how could the waters rise to 15 cubits (8 meters) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn't rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.2
> 
>  If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin.3 If this happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of ‘all' men (Matthew 24:37-39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.
> 
>  If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.
> 
> Belief in a world-wide Flood, as Scripture clearly indicates, has the backing of common sense, science and Christ Himself.
> 
> Noah's Flood covered the whole earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a recent article from the Washington Post, explorer Robert Ballard (discoverer of the Titanic) led a team to the Black Sea in search of evidence for Noah's Flood. About 550 feet below the surface, they found evidence of a ‘sudden, catastrophic flood around 7,500 years ago—the possible source of the Old Testament story of Noah.'
> 
> They captured sonar images of a ‘gentle berm and a sandbar submerged undisturbed for thousands of years on the sea floor.' Then using radiocarbon dating, they determined that the remains of the freshwater mollusks found on this submerged beach were 7,500 years old and that the saltwater species were only 6,900 years old.
> 
> Proof of Noah’s Flood at the Black Sea?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


 once again; you can't use the bible to prove the bible! 

That 'proof' you quoted still only lends to a 'localized flood theory'. Where is the worldwide evidence? Where are the thousands and thousands of dead animals?

BTW, your quote referenced carbon dating, I didn't think creationists generally accepted carbon dating since carbon dating is used to prove that life is older than the bible says.


----------



## Zguy28

2lazy2P said:


> So do you believe the Bible should be taken literally or figuratively?


It's not an "all or nothing" approach and the very definition of "literal" varies among those involved in these discussions IMHO. It is literal in what it teaches us about God, Christ, man, and itself.

For instance Revelation is chock full of symbolism and needs to be interpreted as such, while 1 Corinthians is literal instruction. 

Matthew is not written in perfect chronological order by design. So, while I take what Matthew conveys literally, I do not take the order of events literally.

Often times Jesus speaks figuratively to illustrate a point, but the account of his speech it to be taken literally along with his teachings.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Zguy28 said:
			
		

> 2lazy2P said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you believe the Bible should be taken literally or figuratively?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an "all or nothing" approach and the very definition of "literal" varies among those involved in these discussions IMHO. It is literal in what it teaches us about God, Christ, man, and itself.
> 
> For instance Revelation is chock full of symbolism and needs to be interpreted as such, while 1 Corinthians is literal instruction.
> 
> Matthew is not written in perfect chronological order by design. So, while I take what Matthew conveys literally, I do not take the order of events literally.
> 
> Often times Jesus speaks figuratively to illustrate a point, but the account of his speech it to be taken literally along with his teachings.
Click to expand...


So how do YOU say we are supposed to tell the difference?


----------



## Zguy28

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> So how do YOU say we are supposed to tell the difference?


Well, the first way is common sense. 

I think some knowledge of the original language is pretty important, but not a scholarly level for certain, but at least a willingness to interact with and research it.

I didn't write this, but it pretty much sums it up:

According to Luther's new hermeneutic, which was actually just the recovered hermeneutic of the earliest Church Fathers, each bible passage had one basic meaning, which was firmly rooted in historical truth, and related accurately according to the common principles of human language. Thus, it was “historical,” relating real, interconnected historical events, that must be acknowledged and understood before the various teachings of the bible could make sense or have application; and “grammatical,” using language the way any normal person would.

What does the term â€œgrammatical-historical hermeneuticâ€ mean, and why is it important?


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> once again; you can't use the bible to prove the bible!
> 
> That 'proof' you quoted still only lends to a 'localized flood theory'. Where is the worldwide evidence? Where are the thousands and thousands of dead animals?



UNA - do lawyers and judges use references to law books and case histories to prove and pass judgment on a case?  Isn't that the same as using law books to prove the law?  Same goes with what is written in the Holy Bible. References are made to Scripture to point to a given account of God's Word to mankind and of the teachings of Jesus and His disciples.  The point is whether you personally choose to believe what is written or not. 

What would a court system be like if a criminal chose not to believe a law that has been written and specifically referenced by the prosecution when presenting a case?  The defendant still gets the due penalty coming to him/her if found guilty - so just because a person doesn't believe what the Holy Bible declares does not mean that it is a book to be disregarded and deemed unproven just because you personally do not believe it.



UNA said:


> BTW, your quote referenced carbon dating, I didn't think creationists generally accepted carbon dating since carbon dating is used to prove that life is older than the bible says.



You mean this one?


> (By the way, *radiocarbon is not reliable in giving accurate dates going back thousands of years.* AiG believes that Noah’s Flood should be dated to about 4,300 years ago.)



UNA - *There Is Only One Truth *(John 14:6)


----------



## hvp05

Starman3000m said:


> UNA - do lawyers and judges use references to law books and case histories to prove and pass judgment on a case?  Isn't that the same as using law books to prove the law?  Same goes with what is written in the Holy Bible.


(I'll put in my two, and hopefully UNA doesn't mind my stepping in.)  No, it's not the same.  Laws are based on philosophical and moral grounds, which change from culture to culture and over time.  A physical fact - if a volcano is erupting or not, for example - is not debatable.  If that volcano is dropping lava and ash on your head, you will be burnt regardless how much you believe you will not.  That is the kind of point being addressed in the flood story.  Where did the water come from, and where did it go?  How could one ship hold all those animals?  How is it possible to repopulate the earth with such limited genetic variation?  And so forth.


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> ...Where is the worldwide evidence? Where are the thousands and thousands of dead animals?



Thanks to the "thousands and thousands of dead animals" this world has had pockets of oil throughout the world that are the result of the compaction and decay from those dead animals that were buried deep underground. Mud and silt would account for covering over the animals and giving the environment for the resulting oil and fossil fuel deposits that are found all over.  Texas was once underwater and there are many geological digs throughout the world that yield similar strata that show the world had gone through a unique period of global flooding.


----------



## ItalianScallion

2lazy2P said:


> I looked it up....and found....."*Despite many rumours, evidence, sightings and expeditions, no scientific evidence of the ark has been found"*
> Searches for Noah's Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:shrug:


Wikipedia???  Not a good source my friend...


UNA said:


> And then you go on to say that burden of proof IS on you? And BTW, I don't mean to say you nor anyone reay has to prove anything. If that much moisture entered the earth's atmosphere that quickly it would likely crush our lungs. Doesn't sound like a good move on gods part. And I don't think you meant to say 'evaporate'; that would seem to imply that it's still in earths atmosphere and it obviously isn't


UNA, that was the whole idea; to kill everyone in the flood. You can't limit God, btw. Some evaporated and God made the rest of it go away miraculously.

God has made it clear that His Word is just that: His Word. His Word is "gold" and perfect, so the burden of proof is not on Him. He gave us the Bible and we can accept it or not. If we don't, it doesn't lessen the fact that the Bible is His Word and we will ALL be held accountable for what's in it...


UNA said:


> Yeah, the Mt Ararat phenom. Isn't that the picture with the dark bits that look like an ark? And when people climbed up to find it there was nothing but rocks and it turned out we were matrixing it? And aren't the measurements of the 'ark' too small to be Noah's ark? Funny how people find proof when they want to then when everyone says 'nope, sorry' they ignore it
> Not exactly the 'proof' you were going for, sorry! To be honest, I remember when the Mt Ararat thing started and I really wanted it to be the ark, how awesome would that have been??!!!


Your sources are flawed then. There was a BIG "to do" from the people of Turkey to not allow anyone to come in and check out this object on their mountain: No pictures, no nothing. I'm sure the Ark has somewhat disintegrated over the last 7,000 years and some of it has petrified, so one might think it's a rock formation. If the Bible says it came to rest on Mt Arrarat, it wouldn't be anything less than the Ark, or part of it. Archaeology had been one of the most important tools for proving the Bible's credibility.


----------



## hvp05

ItalianScallion said:


> Some evaporated and God made the rest of it go away *miraculously*.


About time you laid down your ace.    If we are reduced to 'miracles', this discussion is over.


----------



## UNA

Zguy28 said:


> Well, the first way is common sense.
> 
> I think some knowledge of the original language is pretty important, but not a scholarly level for certain, but at least a willingness to interact with and research it.
> 
> I didn't write this, but it pretty much sums it up:
> 
> According to Luther's new hermeneutic, which was actually just the recovered hermeneutic of the earliest Church Fathers, each bible passage had one basic meaning, which was firmly rooted in historical truth, and related accurately according to the common principles of human language. Thus, it was “historical,” relating real, interconnected historical events, that must be acknowledged and understood before the various teachings of the bible could make sense or have application; and “grammatical,” using language the way any normal person would.
> 
> What does the term â€œgrammatical-historical hermeneuticâ€ mean, and why is it important?



But not all event in the Bible are historic; historic implies that we all know if happened.


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> UNA - do lawyers and judges use references to law books and case histories to prove and pass judgment on a case?  Isn't that the same as using law books to prove the law?  Same goes with what is written in the Holy Bible. References are made to Scripture to point to a given account of God's Word to mankind and of the teachings of Jesus and His disciples.  The point is whether you personally choose to believe what is written or not.
> 
> What would a court system be like if a criminal chose not to believe a law that has been written and specifically referenced by the prosecution when presenting a case?  The defendant still gets the due penalty coming to him/her if found guilty - so just because a person doesn't believe what the Holy Bible declares does not mean that it is a book to be disregarded and deemed unproven just because you personally do not believe it.



That's a ridiculous argument.  Of course they use previous cases and laws because they're written down and WE WERE THERE!! 



> You mean this one?



So you say its inaccurate yet you reference it?


----------



## UNA

hvp05 said:


> (I'll put in my two, and hopefully UNA doesn't mind my stepping in.).



It's fine actually, I was so shocked he went there I didn't even know how to respond!


----------



## smdavis65

zzzzzzzzz...........


----------



## UNA

Starman3000m said:


> Thanks to the "thousands and thousands of dead animals" this world has had pockets of oil throughout the world that are the result of the compaction and decay from those dead animals that were buried deep underground. Mud and silt would account for covering over the animals and giving the environment for the resulting oil and fossil fuel deposits that are found all over.  Texas was once underwater and there are many geological digs throughout the world that yield similar strata that show the world had gone through a unique period of global flooding.



a) they didn't all die at the same time (as they would have with a flood).  There were mass extinctions but nothing like "all but two of everything" and certainly not all but a hand-full of humans.

and

b) parts of what is currently dry land did indeed have water on them at one time but not all the lands were covered at once and this was because of the end of the ice age as well as plate tectonics.  You can't use part of the geological evidence he have and not other parts when they are equally valid.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> Wikipedia???  Not a good source my friend...



The references are at the end of the article, read Cummings, Violet M., Noah's Ark: Fable or Fact?, (1972) or go to any of the links.  If the article supported your argument would you still be discrediting Wikipedia?



ItalianScallion said:


> UNA, that was the whole idea; to kill everyone in the flood. You can't limit God, btw. Some evaporated and God made the rest of it go away miraculously.



But then Noah would have died too...are you even reading what I'm posting?



ItalianScallion said:


> God has made it clear that His Word is just that: His Word. His Word is "gold" and perfect, so the burden of proof is not on Him. He gave us the Bible and we can accept it or not. If we don't, it doesn't lessen the fact that the Bible is His Word and we will ALL be held accountable for what's in it...



I never said it was on him, I said it was on the believers.



ItalianScallion said:


> Your sources are flawed then. There was a BIG "to do" from the people of Turkey to not allow anyone to come in and check out this object on their mountain: No pictures, no nothing. I'm sure the Ark has somewhat disintegrated over the last 7,000 years and some of it has petrified, so one might think it's a rock formation. If the Bible says it came to rest on Mt Arrarat, it wouldn't be anything less than the Ark, or part of it. Archaeology had been one of the most important tools for proving the Bible's credibility.



I pose evidence contradictory to yours so my sources are flawed?  Funny, most archeologists disagree with you too...are theyir sources all flawed?


----------



## Bird Dog

smdavis65 said:


> zzzzzzzzz...........



I repeat, time to find another place to pee.


----------



## Zguy28

UNA said:


> But not all event in the Bible are historic; historic implies that we all know if happened.


I believe they are. But I also understand that you do not.

Historic merely means they are considered history. I use a grammatical-historical interpretation because I believe they are.


----------



## PsyOps

Bird Dog said:


> I repeat, time to find another place to pee.



http://forums.somd.com/4581064-post2.html


----------



## hvp05

UNA said:


> You can't use part of the geological evidence he have and not other parts when they are equally valid.


  They scold others for cherry-picking from the Bible, but they cherry-pick from science at will.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Zguy28 said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not all event in the Bible are historic; historic implies that we all know if happened.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they are. But I also understand that you do not.
> 
> Historic merely means they are considered history. I use a grammatical-historical interpretation because I believe they are.
Click to expand...


I respect your right to believe that (and it sounds like you respect my right not to)! 

Like I've said before; a lack of verifiable proof doesn't imply something isn't true! But the Bible doesn't suffice as proof either. For all we know, the universe was sneezed into existence!


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				hvp05 said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't use part of the geological evidence he have and not other parts when they are equally valid.
> 
> 
> 
> They scold others for cherry-picking from the Bible, but they cherry-pick from science at will.
Click to expand...


----------



## ItalianScallion

UNA said:


> The references are at the end of the article, read Cummings, Violet M., Noah's Ark: Fable or Fact?, (1972) or go to any of the links.  If the article supported your argument would you still be discrediting Wikipedia?


The problem is: when is wiki right & when is it wrong? When it's right, you're ok but when it's wrong, it's really wrong. And don't forget that anyone can go in and change what it says.


			
				UNA said:
			
		

> I pose evidence contradictory to yours so my sources are flawed?  Funny, most archeologists disagree with you too...are theyir sources all flawed?





hvp05 said:


> They scold others for cherry-picking from the Bible, but they cherry-pick from science at will.


The difference is that science can be wrong...


----------



## hvp05

ItalianScallion said:


> The problem is: when is wiki right & when is it wrong? When it's right, you're ok but when it's wrong, it's really wrong. And don't forget that anyone can go in and change what it says.


Answered. 




> The difference is that science can be wrong...


I knew you would go there.

You are right:  science can be wrong!  That does not mean, however, that you can pick and choose which parts you wish to be true or not.  Starman - I think it was - said yesterday that the truth is what it is, no matter how much we may want it to be otherwise.  That applies to the scientific realm as much as the spiritual.

You can pound on the large square peg trying to get it through the small round hole as many times as you like but that will not make it fit.  And there is no strong evidence that a worldwide flood fits with history.


----------



## Zguy28

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> I respect your right to believe that (and it sounds like you respect my right not to)!
> 
> Like I've said before; a lack of verifiable proof doesn't imply something isn't true! But the Bible doesn't suffice as proof either. For all we know, the universe was sneezed into existence!



Let's reason together.

There is significant historical evidence for the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
For instance:
Is there a Case for the Resurrection of Jesus? (7:30)

If the resurrection is a real historical event, what does that say about Jesus? Does it prove his deity and his claims and teachings? Yes it does. 

What then does that say about the Scriptures?
Part of Jesus' teachings was that the Old Testament Scriptures "cannot be broken" and that they are from God. Since he is God, as shown by his resurrection, and God is perfectly good, then his claim on the OT Scriptures must be true.


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> ... So you say its inaccurate yet you reference it?



UNA- the reference states radiocarbon (dating) *is not accurate.* That was the point because science tries to prove the age of this earth and fossils through carbon dating and scientists then determine geological ages in "millions/billions" of years when they have no real proof. Radio carbon dating is unreliable - it's all speculation and a big big stretch of theoretical guessing.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				ItalianScallion said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> The references are at the end of the article, read Cummings, Violet M., Noah's Ark: Fable or Fact?, (1972) or go to any of the links.  If the article supported your argument would you still be discrediting Wikipedia?
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is: when is wiki right & when is it wrong? When it's right, you're ok but when it's wrong, it's really wrong. And don't forget that anyone can go in and change what it says.
> 
> 
> 
> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pose evidence contradictory to yours so my sources are flawed?  Funny, most archeologists disagree with you too...are theyir sources all flawed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hvp05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They scold others for cherry-picking from the Bible, but they cherry-pick from science at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that science can be wrong...
Click to expand...


Hvp answered the wiki issue but I want to add that Wikipedia averages 3.86 mistakes per article while Britanica averages 2.92 (http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html)

And yes, science CAN be wrong; the difference is that science admits when it is


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Zguy28 said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> I respect your right to believe that (and it sounds like you respect my right not to)!
> 
> Like I've said before; a lack of verifiable proof doesn't imply something isn't true! But the Bible doesn't suffice as proof either. For all we know, the universe was sneezed into existence!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's reason together.
> 
> There is significant historical evidence for the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
> For instance:
> Is there a Case for the Resurrection of Jesus? (7:30)
> 
> If the resurrection is a real historical event, what does that say about Jesus? Does it prove his deity and his claims and teachings? Yes it does.
> 
> What then does that say about the Scriptures?
> Part of Jesus' teachings was that the Old Testament Scriptures "cannot be broken" and that they are from God. Since he is God, as shown by his resurrection, and God is perfectly good, then his claim on the OT Scriptures must be true.
Click to expand...


I'll never deny that MANY bible events and people are historical. And there is plenty of archeological evidence proving them! The questions arise only WRT the miracles like the flood. 

It sounds like you might be using scripture to prove scripture. I don't think you can do that I.e. "that is a table because it's a table".


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Starman3000m said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... So you say its inaccurate yet you reference it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UNA- the reference states radiocarbon (dating) *is not accurate.* That was the point because science tries to prove the age of this earth and fossils through carbon dating and scientists then determine geological ages in "millions/billions" of years when they have no real proof. Radio carbon dating is unreliable - it's all speculation and a big big stretch of theoretical guessing.
Click to expand...


Oh I'm sorry, I read wrong 

Agree to disagree here; I'm not going to try to argue this point with you. Just remember that you are denying verifiable evidence and tests. That's fine! And I'm denying the miracles in an ancient book.... Fact v Faith. Both good but only one is actually undeniable.


----------



## Zguy28

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> I'll never deny that MANY bible events and people are historical. And there is plenty of archeological evidence proving them! The questions arise only WRT the miracles like the flood.
> 
> It sounds like you might be using scripture to prove scripture. I don't think you can do that I.e. "that is a table because it's a table".


No, I'm using what many consider historical events to work through an argument that logically concludes that the events in Scripture are accurate historically in what they seek to portray and teach.

Put on an historian's hat, not a scientist's. Please, if you have time, go to the link I posted and listen to Dr. Craig explain the events surrounding the resurrection. And don't worry, William Lane Craig isn't some kook with a fake Phd or something. He's the real deal and very articulate.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Zguy28 said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> I'll never deny that MANY bible events and people are historical. And there is plenty of archeological evidence proving them! The questions arise only WRT the miracles like the flood.
> 
> It sounds like you might be using scripture to prove scripture. I don't think you can do that I.e. "that is a table because it's a table".
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm using what many consider historical events to work through an argument that logically concludes that the events in Scripture are accurate historically in what they seek to portray and teach.
> 
> Put on an historian's hat, not a scientist's. Please, if you have time, go to the link I posted and listen to Dr. Craig explain the events surrounding the resurrection. And don't worry, William Lane Craig isn't some kook with a fake Phd or something. He's the real deal and very articulate.
Click to expand...


I'll have to take a look at it this evening! I very much enjoy documentaries linking Bible events with archeology/geology, my favorite is one about the plagues! Is there evidence of the resurection itself?


----------



## Zguy28

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have to take a look at it this evening! I very much enjoy documentaries linking Bible events with archeology/geology, my favorite is one about the plagues! Is there evidence of the resurection itself?


It's not a documentary. Dr. Craig is a Christian philosopher and scholar. It's still good, although admittedly you may find it dry unless you are into intellectual debate.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Zguy28 said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wirelessly posted
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have to take a look at it this evening! I very much enjoy documentaries linking Bible events with archeology/geology, my favorite is one about the plagues! Is there evidence of the resurection itself?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a documentary. Dr. Craig is a Christian philosopher and scholar. It's still good, although admittedly you may find it dry unless you are into intellectual debate.
Click to expand...


It sounds interesting to me!


----------



## hvp05

Zguy28 said:


> No, I'm using what many consider historical events to work through an argument that logically concludes that the events in Scripture are accurate historically in what they seek to portray and teach.





UNA said:


> Is there evidence of the resurection itself?


UNA asked the question I was thinking.  There is historical evidence that Jesus existed, was prosecuted and probably crucified.  But is there evidence of the resurrection?  That is the point where his existence crosses over from being human to supernatural, and is thus critical in determining his godliness.


W.L. Craig's website is called Reasonable Faith.  That sounds like something the literalists will have a problem with.


----------



## Starman3000m

UNA said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> Oh I'm sorry, I read wrong



No problem. 



UNA said:


> [
> Agree to disagree here; I'm not going to try to argue this point with you. Just remember that you are denying verifiable evidence and tests. That's fine! And I'm denying the miracles in an ancient book.... Fact v Faith. Both good but only one is actually undeniable.



Agreeing to Disagree keeps the peace among friends, however, what we both agree on here is that in the final analysis, *There Is Only One Truth.*


----------



## Zguy28

hvp05 said:


> UNA asked the question I was thinking.  There is historical evidence that Jesus existed, was prosecuted and probably crucified.  But is there evidence of the resurrection?  That is the point where his existence crosses over from being human to supernatural, and is thus critical in determining his godliness.


Yes, and also why I mentioned putting on an historian's cap and not a scientist's. You cannot test and prove the supernatural with the scientific method.

You can however draw conclusions based on historical evidence. 




> W.L. Craig's website is called Reasonable Faith.  That sounds like something the literalists will have a problem with.


Craig is a conservative evangelical with a high view of the bible much like myself.


----------



## 2lazy2P

ItalianScallion said:


> The problem is: when is wiki right & when is it wrong? When it's right, you're ok but when it's wrong, it's really wrong. And don't forget that anyone can go in and change what it says.
> 
> 
> The difference is that science can be wrong...


 
Sounds like another Great Book (read: Bible) I know of. Never really know when to take it literally or figuratively. And don't forget, it too can be and has always been open to change and interpretation.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Starman3000m said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wirelessly posted
> 
> Oh I'm sorry, I read wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem.
> 
> 
> 
> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Agree to disagree here; I'm not going to try to argue this point with you. Just remember that you are denying verifiable evidence and tests. That's fine! And I'm denying the miracles in an ancient book.... Fact v Faith. Both good but only one is actually undeniable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreeing to Disagree keeps the peace among friends, however, what we both agree on here is that in the final analysis, *There Is Only One Truth.*
Click to expand...


I don't agree with only one truth WRT religion.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				Zguy28 said:
			
		

> hvp05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> UNA asked the question I was thinking.  There is historical evidence that Jesus existed, was prosecuted and probably crucified.  But is there evidence of the resurrection?  That is the point where his existence crosses over from being human to supernatural, and is thus critical in determining his godliness.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and also why I mentioned putting on an historian's cap and not a scientist's. You cannot test and prove the supernatural with the scientific method.
> 
> You can however draw conclusions based on historical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W.L. Craig's website is called Reasonable Faith.  That sounds like something the literalists will have a problem with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Craig is a conservative evangelical with a high view of the bible much like myself.
Click to expand...


How can you take of the science cap when discussing history? All I think hvp and I are asking here is whether there is historical evidence. It's a simple question.


----------



## hvp05

Zguy28 said:


> Yes, and also why I mentioned putting on an historian's cap and not a scientist's. You cannot test and prove the supernatural with the scientific method.
> 
> You can however draw conclusions based on historical evidence.


As UNA indicated, that (historical evidence) is what I was getting at.  Where is it independent of the Bible?


----------



## Zguy28

hvp05 said:


> As UNA indicated, that (historical evidence) is what I was getting at.  Where is it independent of the Bible?


If you don't mind reading, here is fairly good treatment of the facts by Gary Habermas.

Untitled 1




			
				UNA said:
			
		

> How can you take of the science cap when discussing history? All I think hvp and I are asking here is whether there is historical evidence. It's a simple question.


Easy. History is not something that can be proven by the scientific method. It's why we must be careful with how we use the words "proof" or "evidence."

If you are looking for scientific proof of things, well just about any particular historical event before the invention of television can be brought into question as to its authenticity.


----------



## ItalianScallion

2lazy2P said:


> Sounds like another Great Book (read: Bible) I know of. Never really know when to take it literally or figuratively. And don't forget, it too can be and has always been open to change and interpretation.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>


You need to define "open to change & interpretation" because the Bible is not a document that is. Yes, many people interpret it their own way but that doesn't change it's meaning. It doesn't mean what "anyone" wants it to. 

Change happens when people try to re-translate it to their own liking. This is why (sadly) we have to be careful which translation we pick up and read. Buyer beware: There are only a handful of "Bibles" that are translated well. There are many more that are bad translations than there are good ones...

You CAN know when to take it literally and figuratively, btw. Some are easy and some are not soo easy. Verses like Jesus saying:

29 “...If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell". (Matthew 5)

I'm hoping no one would take this literally. The reason why we know this is not to be taken literally is that Jesus also teaches against "mutilating the body". It is the temple of God and should be respected like it is, so this would seem to be a contradiction, but it isn't because we Christians know that Jesus DID speak in parables, metaphors and hyperboles. This is a hyperbole. You have to know which form of speech is being used:

16 "Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple".(1 Corinthians 3)

19 "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies". (1 Corinthians 6)


----------



## ItalianScallion

hvp05 said:


> As UNA indicated, that (historical evidence) is what I was getting at.  Where is it independent of the Bible?


I don't have the exact writings but 3 come to mind if you want to check them out. These are "extra-biblical" sources:
Tacitus
Josephus
Suetonius


----------



## UNA

Zguy28 said:


> There is significant historical evidence for the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
> For instance:
> Is there a Case for the Resurrection of Jesus? (7:30)



Finally home, finally watched the clip!

The speaker cites 3 facts:

 The empty tomb
 Multiple post mortum sightings
 Sudden belief by the original disciples that God had risen Jesus

But he only details the first 'fact'.  I can easily believe the tomb was found empty; his followers moved him, his 'enemies' moved him.....is there a discussion on the other two facts (IMO the more important ones)?  Maybe the link didn't have the whole video (7:30 min)?


----------



## UNA

Zguy28 said:


> Easy. History is not something that can be proven by the scientific method. It's why we must be careful with how we use the words "proof" or "evidence."



A scientific method is indeed applied to history.  It was introduced in the 14th century by the historian Ibn Khaldun. 

There are many methods with which we interpret history; Saint Augustine obviously viewed history theologically as did the "Father of History" Herodotus but I guess I take a more secular approach and evaluate history on the culture of the time, chronology and physical evidence.



> If you are looking for scientific proof of things, well just about any particular historical event before the invention of television can be brought into question as to its authenticity.



Accounts of history can and often are challenged, subsequently proven inaccurate.  There are, however, other sources of history!  We use archeological and anthropological evidence to support (or discredit) first / second hand accounts.  It is that physical evidence that proves historical events, not the accounts.


----------



## UNA

ItalianScallion said:


> I don't have the exact writings but 3 come to mind if you want to check them out. These are "extra-biblical" sources:
> Tacitus
> Josephus
> Suetonius



Tacitus wrote of the persecution of Christians by Nero.  He writes of the origins on Christianity, considered to be one of the earliest non-Christian accounts of the origin of Christianity.  But...no references to a physical resurrection that I know of.

Josephus texts concerning Jesus are highly contested; most consider his writings to be only partially authentic with the portions corresponding to Christianity (Luke) considered to be additions by a later Christian.

Scholars don't even agree Suetonius texts reference Jesus citing possible spelling errors and/or misinterpretations of the vernacular of the time.

:shrug:


----------



## 2ndAmendment

hvp05 said:


> So then you do agree that we cannot prove much of anything one way or the other.



No!


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> The 'burden' of proof is on the believers.



Wrong! See, you are wrong again and I posted it.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> agree to disagree I suppose...but take the Great Flood.  All the land was covered by water but there isn't enough water on the Earth cover all the land.  So did God create extra water and now it's gone?
> 
> Or
> 
> The Nativity.  I was taught that Mary and Joseph were traveling back to their home town to participate in a Roman census.  A Roman census didn't care where you were from rather where you currently lived.  So at the very least, that's not why they were traveling.



Do you know how much water is in a cloud? According to scientists, the water in the little cloud weighs about 550 tons. At 8.345404 pounds per gallon, that is 131,809.077 gallons (17620.311 ft^3) of water. That is a lot of water and that is only one little cloud. Or since the springs of the earth were opened there was more water. Do you have any idea how much water is below the surface of the earth? What if it all came to the surface? And if that was not enough, so what, God could create extra water? Why  not? God is God. 



> Luke 2:1-3
> 
> 1Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.
> 
> 2This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.
> 
> 3And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.


Maybe all Roman census (censuses if you prefer) did not require travel to the city of origin, but apparently Caesar Augustus cared. If he didn't, then the burden of proof is on you.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Both good but only one is actually undeniable.



Right! The Bible!


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> Finally home, finally watched the clip!
> 
> The speaker cites 3 facts:
> 
> The empty tomb
> Multiple post mortum sightings
> Sudden belief by the original disciples that God had risen Jesus
> 
> But he only details the first 'fact'.  I can easily believe the tomb was found empty; his followers moved him, his 'enemies' moved him.....is there a discussion on the other two facts (IMO the more important ones)?  Maybe the link didn't have the whole video (7:30 min)?



And if you, yes put yourself in the context, knew that the body had been moved, would you be willing to be crucified when others said you would be unless you denied the resurrection? Would you knowingly die for a lie?

As to the enemies of Jesus taking the body, what about the Roman soldiers? Hmmm? They were put on guard to prevent His followers from taking the body, but would they not have prevented anyone from taking the body? And if the Scribes and Pharisees, the only ones with a vested interest in proving there was no resurrection, had taken the body, don't you think they would have produced it to prove Jesus was not ascended into heaven?


----------



## hvp05

2ndAmendment said:


> No!


Then you probably should not have raised your proverbial glass to Psy's comment.  

I call your attention to the post he made immediately following the one you heartily agreed with:

PsyOps said:


> Perhaps I missed the facts vs. faith part since I recall trying to point out that your trust in the facts ends up being nothing more than faith in those who give you those ‘facts’; since those facts can’t be concretely proven.  *It’s about proving what you believe is right; which, given the limited amount of ‘facts’, we can’t.*







2ndAmendment said:


> And if that was not enough, so what, God could create extra water? Why  not? God is God.


It sure must be nice to bend reality to fit whatever you want to believe; to go beyond physics with the simple sticking of your fingers into your ears and saying, "Na-na-na-na!"

If you wish to resort to "God is God," why bother to discuss anything ever?  :shrug:


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> Do you know how much water is in a cloud? According to scientists, the water in the little cloud weighs about 550 tons. At 8.345404 pounds per gallon, that is 131,809.077 gallons (17620.311 ft^3) of water. That is a lot of water and that is only one little cloud. Or since the springs of the earth were opened there was more water. Do you have any idea how much water is below the surface of the earth? What if it all came to the surface? And if that was not enough, so what, God could create extra water? Why  not? God is God.



It's not as much water as you would think.  There does not exist enough water in the Earth (below, on and above) to cover the highest mountain in 20 feet.  But no matter what I say, you can say "well God did it, He just made more water".  So, God doesn't follow the rules he created?



2ndAmendment said:


> Maybe all Roman census (censuses if you prefer) did not require travel to the city of origin, but apparently Caesar Augustus cared. If he didn't, then the burden of proof is on you.



A census (then as today) is for tax purposes, they don't care where I'm from (i.e. I don't pay Pennsylvania taxes) they care where I am (I pay Maryland taxes).  There is no record of the Romans taking a census that way, they were meticulous record keepers.  There is no record of a Roman worldwide census in the first place!  The burden of proof is not on me as I am not the one going against convention here.  But in any case:

James Douglas Grant Dunn, _Jesus Remembered_ states that "...it was not the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes..."

and

Emil Schürer (revised by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Matthew Black), The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ states that "...no historical sources mention a worldwide or even a Roman-controlled world census which would cover the population as a whole; those of Augustus covered Roman citizens only...".  Mary and Joseph were not Roman (as in the city) citizens.


----------



## UNA

2ndAmendment said:


> And if you, yes put yourself in the context, knew that the body had been moved, would you be willing to be crucified when others said you would be unless you denied the resurrection? Would you knowingly die for a lie?
> 
> As to the enemies of Jesus taking the body, what about the Roman soldiers? Hmmm? They were put on guard to prevent His followers from taking the body, but would they not have prevented anyone from taking the body? And if the Scribes and Pharisees, the only ones with a vested interest in proving there was no resurrection, had taken the body, don't you think they would have produced it to prove Jesus was not ascended into heaven?



I was just asking for the rest of the speech/sermon...

And yes, I would lie my azz off, saying it doesn't make it true...I would tell you the sky was purple if it saved my or a loved one's life!  It's called survival 

This is why I wanted to see the rest of the speech/sermon, I don't have your whole argument yet!  I looked but the only videos I can find are about 7:30 minutes long...


----------



## UNA

hvp05 said:


> It sure must be nice to bend reality to fit whatever you want to believe; to go beyond physics with the simple sticking of your fingers into your ears and saying, "Na-na-na-na!"
> 
> If you wish to resort to "God is God," why bother to discuss anything ever?  :shrug:





Well it took longer than I thought for that 'argument' to be pulled!


----------



## 2ndAmendment

hvp05 said:


> Then you probably should not have raised your proverbial glass to Psy's comment.
> 
> I call your attention to the post he made immediately following the one you heartily agreed with:
> 
> 
> 
> It sure must be nice to bend reality to fit whatever you want to believe; to go beyond physics with the simple sticking of your fingers into your ears and saying, "Na-na-na-na!"
> 
> If you wish to resort to "God is God," why bother to discuss anything ever?  :shrug:


But God is God. He created the universe and established all the laws by which it operates. That is the way it is. Sorry you don't like. Too bad, so sad.

So discussion or debate or whatever is out. So don't read or reply to what I post.


----------



## 2ndAmendment

UNA said:


> And yes, I would lie my azz off, saying it doesn't make it true...I would tell you the sky was purple if it saved my or a loved one's life!  It's called survival



You missed it totally!

If it did not matter, then maybe the disciples would have lied or denied, as Peter did when Jesus was arrested. But after the resurrection and ascension, there was no more denying by the disciples or any others that witnessed the resurrected Jesus. They died rather than deny. If the resurrection did not really happen and they knew it, then there would have been no reason not to deny since it would have been the truth; they would not have died for a lie. But they did choose to died rather than deny because they KNEW the resurrection is true.


----------



## UNA

Wirelessly posted



			
				2ndAmendment said:
			
		

> UNA said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, I would lie my azz off, saying it doesn't make it true...I would tell you the sky was purple if it saved my or a loved one's life!  It's called survival
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed it totally!
> 
> If it did not matter, then maybe the disciples would have lied or denied, as Peter did when Jesus was arrested. But after the resurrection and ascension, there was no more denying by the disciples or any others that witnessed the resurrected Jesus. They died rather than deny. If the resurrection did not really happen and they knew it, then there would have been no reason not to deny since it would have been the truth; they would not have died for a lie. But they did choose to died rather than deny because they KNEW the resurrection is true.
Click to expand...


Guess I lack conviction...


----------

